multiple return values

[Chris Hanson <CPH@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>]

    Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 22:13:26 EST
    From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR at AI.AI.MIT.EDU>

    I would strongly oppose the Common Lisp multiple value semantics.  I
    find it to be very distasteful.  If this means that the language has no
    multiple values primitively, and I have to implement semantics #1 myself
    using lists or closures or whatever, that's fine with me.

    If I have many sympathizers then I'd say it appears that we're
    as deadlocked as we were last time this came up...

I think that I agree with JAR... I've just got back from vacation and
have not yet read all the mail on this (at 1200 baud, I'll wait for
work tomorrow!), but I am very disturbed by the direction this is
taking.  I don't see a need for a complicated semantics!  I'll reply
more fully later when I've had a chance to read all of this.