Emmanuel Medernach scripsit: > Except for continuations created by the call-with-values procedure, > all continuations take exactly one value. The effect of passing no > value or more than one value to continuations that were not created > by call-with-values is unspecified. > > Therefore code relying on this cannot be portable, isn't it ?
No, it's not portable. > As you say, some implementation reifies 'values'. However the > R[567]RS definition of values currently forbids to reify it as I > understand it : > > (values obj ...) procedure Delivers all of its arguments to its > continuation. It doesn't say *how* they are delivered. Reification is a perfectly legitimate strategy. Historically, multiple values were intended to be a more lightweight alternative to constructing an object: -- Where the wombat has walked, John Cowan <[email protected]> it will inevitably walk again. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
