[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Inappropriate number of values should be defined

[Michael Sperber]

John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> writes:

> Michael Sperber scripsit:
>
>> It's in Section 9.17:
>> 
>> >> The continuations of all non-final expressions within a sequence of
>> >> expressions in lambda, begin, let, let*, letrec, letrec*,
>> >> let-values, let*-values, case, cond, and do forms as well as the
>> >> continuations of the before and after arguments to dynamic-wind take
>> >> an arbitrary number of values.
>
> Excellent.  I suggest that a cross-reference be added to "values", then,
> because the language there is unequivocal and wrong.

I'm confused.  This *is* in the spec for `value', in the second
paragraph.  Could you elaborate on what you mean by "the language
there"?

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla