Re: Multiple values for R4RS.

[R. Kent Dybvig <dyb@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>]

> Certainly not TECHNICALLY, but it is my POLITICAL feeling, that if it
> is not accepted as a complete package, it will not be accepted later.
> The people who want the "restrictive" multiple values will feel no
> pressure to accept it later since they will already have what they
> want.  I'm not asking for their semantics to be different (I've
> compromised on paranoid checking by default), but I would like a
> little compromise on everyone else's part.

As long as we are considering the issues politically rather than
technically, how would you feel about the following compromises?

   * let's add "values" and "with-values" (or "apply-values") and
     change the name of the so-called "named let" to "recur".

   * let's add "accepts?" and remove the requirement that Scheme
     be case insensitive.

These may be considered together or separately, as you desire.

Kent