Re: what about dropping rest-lists?

[Sebastian Egner <sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Neil W. Van Dyke wrote:
> The "values" keyword as a kludge to
support rest-lists, however, strikes
> me as a syntactically ugly way to support an operation that I'd expect
> to use only rarely.

Same with me, but the expected ugliness will be low: 

        E{ugliness}
= Sum[ugliness(case) * Prob{case} : case].

And if you really need the rest-list
thing (the day will come),
the meaning will at least be obvious.

> In summary, I'd really like to see "let",
"let*", "letrec", and
> "letrec*" extended for multiple-value, but would like to
drop the
> "(value ...)" syntax, even if that means dropping rest-list
support.

At the point I decide to drop rest-list
values the SRFI will be withdrawn, I promise.
The whole point of this SRFI is to integrate
multiple values in all their beauty
smoothly into the Scheme language.

Sebastian