This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 86 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 86 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
By Googling, I happened to see #scheme IRC, and all schemers benefit the internet community. The following are excerpts relating to `MU and NU substituting for VALUES and CALL-WITH-VALUES, and their related LET-syntax' in c.l.s.(a rough draft of SRFI-86). 2005-08-27 08:59:52 <Riastradh> Some people really surprise me. Joo ChurlSoo has packed more nonextensible frills into what was originally a really basic binding form than any other macro I've ever seen except for LOOP, but even that at least is more complex than a simple binding form in the first place. 09:01:05 <Maddas> What is it about? 09:01:33 <Riastradh> All in conjunction with a 'whoosh' of point missage of multiple return values, and no rationale beyond 'CALL-WITH-VALUES is slow and clumsy.' 09:02:34 <Maddas> Hm, I already like Desktop Manager (Yes, I think I dismissed that possibility not too long ago). Thanks for the (implicit) suggestion. 09:03:42 <Riastradh> He invented this marvellous special form (MU arg ...) which expands to (LAMBDA (F) (F arg ...)). Then he built ALET & ALET*, which include: MU-based multiple values, broken FLUID-LET semantics, rest-list parsing for optional arguments, a random facility for throwing CWCC into the mix, forced left-to-right evaluation, some complex form of named LET which allows for multiple MUs in the argument list or something... 09:05:11 <Maddas> Hold on, is this that uber-Lisp that someone (Joo ChurlSoo doesn't sound like the name I'm thinking of) proposed a while ago on c.l.s/c.l.l? 09:05:51 <Riastradh> No, this is just about four hundred lines of obfuscated tail-recursive SYNTAX-RULES macros. 09:05:58 <Riastradh> Perhaps more. 09:06:24 <Maddas> Oh, the other kind of fun :) 09:07:21 <forcer> Which SRFI? 09:07:31 <Riastradh> No SRFI. Just c.l.s. 09:08:20 <Maddas> forcer: I find it sad that I had exactly that question in mind too when I first the line above ;-) 09:08:26 <Riastradh> I think he was prompted to build this because he discovered the ghastly notion that SRFI 71 didn't specify the order of evaluation, which he first discovered as a 'lambda inconsistency bug' in Scheme48. 09:08:41 <Riastradh> (SRFI 71 being the multiple-values-extended LET) 09:12:30 <forcer> ;-) 09:12:38 <forcer> Did someone tell him about SML yet? 09:27:21 <mejja> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/799330b33a478136 O_O -- Joo ChurlSoo