Eli Barzilay scripsit: > In any case, that's how multiple values fit in the scheme historical > context.
Very well. > And BTW, as long as I gave the above example, and was dragged to quote > the relevant part of R5RS, I can just as well continue the quote: > > Except for continuations created by the call-with-values procedure, > all continuations take exactly one value. > > and it should be clear now why Chibi's implementation is just plain > broken: You know that is not true. How dare you say such a thing? I suppose next you will inform me that (car #f) and (cons 1 2 3) are also compelled to signal errors? > If you want to get pickier, then all implementations that don't barf > at > > (list 1 (values 2 3 4) 5) > > are broken because according to R5RS: > > (values obj ...) > > Delivers all of its arguments to its continuation. Except for > continuations created by the call-with-values procedure, all > continuations take exactly one value. If R5RS said "Except for [...], all continuations must signal an error if they do not receive exactly one value", then you'd be right. It doesn't and you aren't. > | Chibi's use cases just aren't anything like Racket's. > > was just irrelevant nonsense, You are entitled to consider it irrelevant to your concerns. The statement is not nonsense. Indeed, it is true. If you say otherwise, you are a liar. > (And yes, "Ultimately, if you want R6RS, you know where to find it." > is wrong too, but who's counting?) And I'm done with you. It's a pity, because I've learned things from you, but you are going out of your way to make yourself offensive, and I see no reason to stand for it. I adopt this harsh and public mode of denunciation to make my intentions unmistakably clear. *plonk* -- De plichten van een docent zijn divers, John Cowan die van het gehoor ook. [email protected] --Edsger Dijkstra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
