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

records; CALL-WITH-VALUES



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