Re: [Scheme-reports] values [was: Opinion about R7RS]

[Jean-Michel HUFFLEN <jmhuffle@x>]

Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@x> wrote:

> (...)
>
>>     The "values" function should be defined better about the equivalence:
>>        (values X) == X
> (...)
>
> The real definition is "passes its arguments to its continuation".

    Thanks for this clarification (and sorry for answering late, I was  
far from any computer for 3 days).

>> A rough implementation of this function is:
>> (define (values . things)
>>    (lambda (f) (apply f things)))

    For me, the problem was that I suspect some interpreters to use  
such a rough implementation. MIT Scheme, for example. But may be they  
are not fully R(5|6)RS-compliant and they should signal that within  
their documentation.

    Cheers,

J.-M.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports