Am Mo., 7. Nov. 2022 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <[email protected]>: > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:20 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > If an unspecified return could be "zero or more values", then the same >> > expression could return a different number of values each time. A test >> > can't reliably catch that. > > > It certainly can, using (receive vals expr vals), which binds to a list of > the values returned by expr and then returns them. There are a variety of > equivalent expressions using let-values and call-with-values. > > That said, it is IMO better to stick with the existing R7RS-small convention > and then leave it to be considered by Committee C (which I believe already > has an issue for this) at a later stage. Having an inconsistent convention > benefits nobody.
The sample implementation currently returns zero values, which should catch errors early when people misunderstand the semantics of "independently" with the semantics of "begin".
