[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multiple values
>> From: Robert Hieb <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> As I understand it, the substance of Kent's argument all along was that
>> continuations produced by "with-values" should be distinct
>> from ordinary continuations, and "values" should be thought of as the
>> means of interacting with such continuations. On the other hand, the
>> opposition, with whom I thought myself allied, was arguing that continuations
>> produced by "with-values" differed only in arity from ordinary continuations.
>> It seems we are back to two kinds of continuations again.
As I see it, the proposal implies that continuations produced by
WITH-VALUES differ only in arity from ordinary continuations. The
compromise is not to specify the arity of ordinary continuations.
Thus implimentations is which ordinary continuation can only be applied
to only exactly one value are just as valid as implementations which
allow ordinary continuations to be applied to one or more values. I
believe this proposal satisfies your requirements. Please tell me if
you are not convinced.