On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 20:59 -0700, Brian Harvey wrote:
> > So far so good. It's a symmetry, as you point out.
>
> I would find this more convincing if the use of multiple arguments required
> the use of a hideoous kludge analogous to call-with-values.
As I said, the symmetry breaks down in the syntax of the language
we use to represent it.
I am still not convinced that multiple returns are a "Right thing"
in scheme myself, nor that call-with-values et al are the best way
to express it.
I am convinced of the clarity and symmetry of the "argument tuples
and return tuples" mathematics, but I find myself with a vague
feeling that there is something deeply wrong with the way they've
been mapped to the scheme language.
Bear
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
