[r6rs-discuss] multiple values and mathematicians
lord at emf.net
Fri Feb 20 13:29:47 EST 2009
On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 11:03 -0600, Grant Rettke wrote:
> 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?
I think you have the essence of the thing right. Prof. Harvey
isn't right on this one, imo.
"Goto [with parameters] considered ... "
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
More information about the r6rs-discuss