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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 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 17:53:58 +0200

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.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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