Re: An alternate description of the multiple values proposal

[ramsdell@linus.mitre.org]

>> From: Pavel.pa@xerox.com
...
>> As I said in my last message on this topic, I'm pretty unsatisfied with the
>> descriptions that have been circulated thus far.  Unfortunately, my
>> proposed description in that message seems to have been ignored, so I'll
>> repeat it here in the context of a complete proposed description of the
>> facility, including the write-ups of VALUES, CALL-WITH-VALUES, and
>> CALL-WITH-CURRENT-CONTINUATION.

Pavel, I thought I was responding to your concerns by changing my
description of VALUES so as not to special case the single-argument
case.

As to your current proposal, I think it has some strengths and
weaknesses.  I like the terminology of producer/consumer better than
generator/receiver.  The text describing
CALL-WITH-CURRENT-CONTINUATION also looks good.  I think that the
BABY-DOE procedure should include text that makes it clear what
happens when the continuation given to the producer is captured by
CALL-WITH-CURRENT-CONTINUATION.

On naming BABY-DOE, I think we can assume that Pavel suggests
CALL-WITH-VALUES and Chris Hanson suggests WITH-VALUES.

John