[r6rs-discuss] JAR statement

[Andrew Reilly]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:30:27AM -0800, Brian Harvey wrote:
> 2.  I'm not convinced that implementors should have more say than anyone
> else.  IIRC, that's how we got multiple return values.  If we give extra
> votes to anyone, it should be mathematicians.  (I'm not one, so I don't
> get any extra votes under that proposal.)

What makes you think that mathematicians would vote against
multiple return values?  I'm closer to being a mathematician
than an implementor, and I'm in favour of them, irrespective of
the implementation issues.  I like the symmetry and the support
of catenative decomposition, and the way it helps with algorithm
factorization and organization.

I'm also new (and consequently enthusiastic) at this whole
functional programming lark, so I'd take my opinion with a large
dose of salt, and probably a -6dB vote penalty...

Cheers,

Andrew