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

Re: Multiple values not for R4RS

To: rrrs-authors@life.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Multiple values not for R4RS
From: ramsdell@linus.mitre.org
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 89 12:33:42 EDT
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 01 Sep 89 08:56:44 -0700. <8909011556.AA05427@Polya.Stanford.EDU>
Posted-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 89 12:33:42 EDT
Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA

>> From: Morris J. Katz <katz@Polya.Stanford.EDU>
...
>> We can leave it to the editors (since that seems to be the current
>> sentiment) ....

Leave it to the editors if you want to, not because it seems to be the
current sentiment.  You count!

I understand your text now.  I guess I find the term "includes"
ambiguous.  Let me suggest another approach to explaining BABY-DOE.
I follow the lead of Will and the semantics.

The BABY-DOE procedure takes a thunk and a procedure, and calls the
thunk with a continuation that, when passed some values, calls the
procedure that was the second argument to the BABY-DOE procedure with
those values as arguments.  The result of a call of the BABY-DOE
procedure is the result of the call of the second argument.

John

References:
- Multiple values not for R4RS
  - From: Morris J. Katz <katz@polya.stanford.edu>

Prev by Date: An alternative to ACCEPTS?
Next by Date: Re: An alternate description of the multiple values proposal
Prev by thread: Multiple values not for R4RS
Next by thread: Re: Multiple values for R4RS
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread