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

*To*: srfi-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: LET-VALUES concerns*From*: sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor])*Date*: 14 Sep 1999 15:41:22 +0200*Sender*: sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm a bit concerned about the syntax of LET-VALUES: (LET-VALUES (<formals> <expression>) <body>) Syntax <Formals> should be a formal arguments list as for a LAMBDA expression, cf section 4.1.4 of the R5RS. This means (let-values (a <expression a single value> ) ...) will bind A to a list containing the single value. I believe this will likely be a common mistake producing an unexpected result. MzScheme's LET-VALUES requires <formals> to be parenthesized. I personally think that, since (VALUES X) is equivalent to X, a single name A should be equivalent to (A) in that position. I would also like to see LET-VALUES allow more bindings to be consistent with LET. (Unfortunately, this pretty much requires there being LET*-VALUES and LETREC-VALUES as well, again as in MzScheme.) -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla

- Prev by Date:
**Existing implementations** - Next by Date:
**why not 3 different SRFIs** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Existing implementations** - Next by thread:
**Re: LET-VALUES concerns** - Index(es):