Hey!
Andy Wingo writes:
> So I would say about this: we can probably deal with it. It's
> unspecified anyway, and is really an edge case.
Agreed.
It's fun to see how the compiler/VM teach me how to write reasonable
code. :-)
Thanks,
Ludo'.
cing expression.
> OTOH, I suspect that the effect of storing multiple values in a single
> variable is not specified anyway. (FWIW, Bigloo discards all values but
> the first and Ikarus throws an error.)
There are two things that an implementation might sensibly choose to do
when
s-var let-values-var let-values-var)>
... whereas:
scheme@(guile-user)> (let-values (((a b c d) (values 0 1 2 3))) (list a b c
d))
$6 = (0 1 2 3)
works.
OTOH, I suspect that the effect of storing multiple values in a single
variable is not specified anyway. (FWIW, Bigloo discard
