On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 19:09 +1000, Ramana Kumar wrote: > > I love multiple return values. Especially proper zero return values as > > Ikarus, Chez, and PLT (and probably others) do, which nothing else > > (lists, records, etc.) can emulate (I believe). > > The sentiment of my comment was actually that the syntax for multiple > values in Scheme is still wanting.
What could be simpler and more natural than binding multiple return values with "formals" syntax? > Of course there have been many > SRFIs that try to improve the situation, and let(*)-values in R6RS is > nice. I think the standard let should just allow any number of values > - are there good reasons for including let and let-values rather than > just a let which means let-values Yes: (let-values ((vals ---)) ---) (let ((vals ---)) ---) ;; How many values would it accept? > (possibly with fewer parentheses in > the syntax...)? I like having every binding clause in parentheses, visually and for cursor navigation. You can always make your own macro and import it with one short line... ;-) -- : Derick ----------------------------------------------------------------
