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


I changed my mind and now agree that the name for BABY-DOE need not be
so descriptive as to distinguish between Common Lisp style and Scheme
style multiple values.  Having "continuation" in the name for BABY-DOE
is a bit much.

>> From: gls@think.com (Guy Steele)
>> Then we can describe the two proposed procedures in a reasonably symmetric
>> fashion: VALUES takes a set of objects headed downward as arguments and
>> bounces them back upward as values.  (Think of a mirror.  I would have said
>> "reflects" instead of "bounces" except the former already has another
>> technical meaning.)  BABY-DOE takes a set of objects headed upward as
>> values and bounces them back downward as arguments.
>> Therefore, if we retain the name VALUES for the one, one might reach the
>> logical, if not entirely aesthetic, conclusion that BABY-DOE should be
>> called ARGUMENTS.
>> --Guy

If we do not retain the name for VALUES, one could use Guy's logic to
name the two proposed procedures CONSUME and PRODUCE.

CALL-WITH-VALUES is fine by me but I wish we could find something
shorter.  RETURN is my favorite alternative to VALUES.  Using Guy's
logic, I guess the symmetric pair of names would then be CALL and