[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
records; CALL-WITH-VALUES
- To: rrrs-authors
- Subject: records; CALL-WITH-VALUES
- From: will@cs.uoregon.edu
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 18:16:08 PST
The results of my poll are in, and here they are.
No one objected to having a description of the record facility
in an appendix to R4RS, so that will happen.
Here is how people voted on CALL-WITH-VALUES (formerly BABY-DOE):
======================================================================
|
14 | I do not object to describing BABY-DOE in an appendix to
| R4RS, provided its semantics is compatible with the semantics
| I favor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
1 | I object to describing BABY-DOE in an appendix to R4RS.
|
|
======================================================================
|
13 | I do not object to semantics A: "for-effect" continuations
| accept any number of return values.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| I object to semantics A but I do not object to semantics B:
| "for-effect" continuations accept either zero or one return
| value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
1 | I object to semantics A and B but I do not object to
| semantics C: "for-effect" continuations accept one return
| value.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
1 | None of the above. Either I object to BABY-DOE, or I object
| to Clinger's stupid characterization of the alternative
| semantics for BABY-DOE.
======================================================================
The person who voted "None of the above" volunteered an explanation,
from which I deduce that the person would have voted with the 13 if
not for some confusion over the term "for-effect".
We do not have unanimity here, so our ground rules forbid me to put
CALL-WITH-VALUES into an appendix to R4RS unless the person(s) in the
minority is (are) willing to reconsider his/her/their vote(s). The vote
was pretty clear, though, so those who have been waiting for a consensus
to emerge before implementing multiple values may now be able to proceed.
Peace, Will