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

Re: Rationale question

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 71 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 71 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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)
>>   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 
> discussion:
>         http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-71/mail-archive/msg00015.html
>         http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-71/mail-archive/msg00019.html
> 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