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

Re: multiple values proposal

>> I would like this to be amended so that continuations which ignore the
>> returned value can also receive 0 values.  I am not sure how to word
>> this.  The advantage of doing this is that if an implementation
>> returns 0 values for procedures whose values are unspecified in the
>> standard, the implementation can catch as errors places where 0 values
>> are being stored.

I discourage any amendments to the multiple values proposal for R5RS.
There was an extensive discussion on multiple values in 1989.  The
wording you see was carefully crafted so as to get a consensus on the
issue.  The issue you raised was discussed and was not included in the
proposal due to objections.  I encourage you to make your proposal for
R6RS, but let's let R5RS proceed without opening this issue again.