[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multiple values
> I agree again. I believe the multiple values proposal being considered
> allows the "truncation" feature as an extension: the critical property
> is that (VALUES E) is always equivalent to E.
And this is the feature I'm most critical of. Unless an implementation
does support the truncation feature, I don't see any reason why we should
require that "(values e)" be equivalent to "e". I would like to feel
free to signal an error if "(values e)" is returned to a context that
is not prepared to accept multiple values.