[r6rs-discuss] multiple values and mathematicians
grettke at acm.org
Fri Feb 20 12:03:50 EST 2009
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Derick Eddington
<derick.eddington at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like returning `(values)' for things which logically return no value,
> because it seems robust in the spirit of "detect errors as soon as
> possible" if such things are accidentally used at a continuation that
> takes a value.
It seems like part of learning Scheme is internalizing the notion that
every procedure secretly has a continuation passed to it, and that is
how we can understand that the result of the last expression is
"returned" (iow applied to the secret continuation). Additionally we
need this to visualize how call/cc works.
That said, I wonder what is the rationale for leaving the result of
passing multiple values to a continuation unspecified when it is a
function like any other?
More information about the r6rs-discuss