Re: An alternate description of the multiple values proposal

[ramsdell@linus.mitre.org]

So do people agree with Will's statement that we should not worry
about the wording of a multiple values proposal?  I am quite willing
to trust the editors.  I assume we will agree, so, I will refrain from
making editorial comments.

>> From: Pavel.pa@xerox.com
...
>> I have a disagreement with Will's description of the consensus.  He says,
>> ``Except for continuations created by the procedure to be named later, all
>> continuations take exactly one value, as now''.  I firmly believe that
>> continuations for the ``for effect'' context should take any number of
>> arguments; I would very much not like to see this left unspecified.
...

It seems to me that Will's description of the consensus is a good one
in the sense that it represents the minimum change required to get
usable multiple values into Scheme.  It represents a compromise I
suspect all will embrace.  I hope Pavel agrees it is better than
nothing.

I suggest that the arity of `for effect' continuations be left as the
subject of a separate agenda item.  Simply put, I do not want to risk
the multiple values compromise on this point.  Remember, the consensus
on multiple values is not supposed to be the last word on the subject.
I expect further proposals on procedures related to ACCEPT? for
example.

John