[r6rs-discuss] Proposed features for small Scheme, part 1: a stake in the ground

[Thomas Lord]

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 15:28 -0700, Brian Harvey wrote:
> It certainly wouldn't be my ideal choice, because it has multiple
> return values, a blasphemy.


Why do you say that, please?

It just seems a clean symmetry to have those.

And:

> there are one or two things not in any Scheme
> standard, and not implementable on top of any
> Scheme standard afaik, that I keep missing, e.g., ARITY.

What do you mean?  Do you mean a procedure that
tells you the arity of a procedure?   If so,
I think that is a confused notion because in general
every procedure takes a flat environment as argument
and there are many ways to constrain which environments
are acceptable vs. which are errors.   What of a procedure
that it is an error to call with any number of arguments
which is not a prime number, for example?  What is its 
arity?


-t