Re: [racket-users] multiple-value version of in-value

> > > > For example: > > > > (for/first (((a b c) (in-values (values 2 + 3 (b a c)) ; -> 5 > > > > Thanks again, Jos > > > > *From: *Philip McGrath > *Sent: *04 May 2020 17:21 > *To: *Jos Koot > *Cc: *us...@racket-lang.org > *Subjec

RE: [racket-users] multiple-value version of in-value

) (((id ...) (_ expr)) #'((id ...) (:do-in (((id ...) expr)) #t () #t () #t #f ())) For example: (for/first (((a b c) (in-values (values 2 + 3 (b a c)) ; -> 5 Thanks again, Jos From: Philip McGrath Sent: 04 May 2020 17:21 To: Jos Koot Cc: us...@racket-lang.org Subject: Re:

RE: [racket-users] multiple-value version of in-value

Very nice. I have installed the package. Thanks very much, Jos From: Philip McGrath Sent: 04 May 2020 17:21 To: Jos Koot Cc: us...@racket-lang.org Subject: Re: [racket-users] multiple-value version of in-value My package `adjutor` has a few variants of this, like `in-value*`: https

Re: [racket-users] multiple-value version of in-value

My package `adjutor` has a few variants of this, like `in-value*`: https://docs.racket-lang.org/adjutor/Stable.html#(part._.Sequence_.Constructors) They can all be used as first-class procedures, but that does involve a little runtime overhead, so they use `define-sequence-syntax` to cooperate