GNU bug report logs - #17474
Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem convenient

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 17474 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 17474 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#17474: Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem
 convenient
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 21:21:25 +0200

David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> R5RS defines ‘values’ as:
>>
>>      (define (values . things)
>>        (call-with-current-continuation
>>          (lambda (cont) (apply cont things))))
>>
>> Thus, a conforming implementation must raise a run-time error when the
>> continuation of a (values) form expects one or more values.
>
> No.  From R5RS:
>
>  -- procedure: call-with-current-continuation proc
>
> [...]
>
>      The escape procedure accepts the same number of arguments as the
>      continuation to the original call to
>      call-with-current-continuation.  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.

Oh indeed, I stand corrected.

> So this behavior is neither out of line, nor against the standard.  It
> is merely a more convenient behavior for a situation that the standard
> left unspecified.

Right.

I’m not completely convinced it makes sense to “specify” the zero values
case in this way, but I’d like to hear what others think.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.