[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rationale question
Sebastian Egner <sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Mike Sperber wrote:
>> I'm not sure what VALUES->LIST is supposed to be---given the symmetry
>> between return values and arguments, I'd say it'd have to be
>> (define (values->list . vals)
>> This procedure is called LIST in R5RS, so LIST-VALUES isn't a name
>> symmetric with anything. UNLIST seems fine.
>> Or am I missing something?
> I think you do. Please refer to the previous incarnation of this
> Aparently there is some comment missing in the SRFI text.
Oops, sorry, that must have gone right past me.
However, I think VALUES->LIST is a pretty unnatural name for your
construct. (Or the construct an unnatural fit for the name---take
your pick.) So I think adding the definition wouldn't really help
clarifying the rationale.
Given that there's now been two of us who are confused by your
argument for the *other* side, my vote is for eliding that paragraph.
(Not that it's especially important, so I'll shut up now on this.)
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla