[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revised WITH-VALUES and VALUES (I think we are near agreement!)

To: rrrs-authors@life.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Revised WITH-VALUES and VALUES (I think we are near agreement!)
From: ramsdell@linus.mitre.org
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 14:22:31 EDT
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 24 Aug 89 12:09:48 -0400. <8908241609.AA12852@zurich.ai.mit.edu>
Posted-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 14:22:31 EDT
Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA

I take Chris's suggestion as a friendly amendment and accept it unless
some one objects.
John

>> From: cph@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Chris Hanson)
...
>> May I suggest rewording the last sentence as follows?  This eliminates
>> a small ambiguity.
>> 
>> "Returning zero values or more than one value to something other than
>> a receiving procedure is an error."

References:
- Revised WITH-VALUES and VALUES (I think we are near agreement!)
  - From: cph (Chris Hanson)

Prev by Date: Multiple values for R4RS.
Next by Date: Programmer-defined data types
Prev by thread: Revised WITH-VALUES and VALUES (I think we are near agreement!)
Next by thread: Revised WITH-VALUES and VALUES (I think we are near agreement!)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread