Message from discussion Alternatives to values/call-with-values

Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "cr88192" <cr88...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Re: Alternatives to values/call-with-values
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 08:31:23 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vinm9dmvj5sr99@corp.supernews.com>
References: <yy10d6fodux0.fsf@chaosnet.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 35

>
> To my surprise, this proposal generated almost no discussion.  In fact,
> it seemed to mark the end of the original one, and since then people
> seem to have resigned themselves to values/call-with-values, occasional
> fulminations aside.
>
> My questions:
>
> 1.  Is this proposal still viable for Scheme, as a language, today?
>
> 2.  What are the thoughts of implementors on the proposal?
>
> 3.  Have people really resigned themselves to values/call-with-values,
>     both
>       a) as a specific means of handling multiple return values, and
>       b) as the philosophical departure from the roots of the language
>          they (arguably) represent?
>
> 4.  Does anyone have any other ideas for dealing with the problem of
>     multiple return values that haven't been raised yet?
>
as of yet I did not bother to implement these. if I did it would probably
jusy be in the form of macros:
(defmacro values x
    `(list ,@x))

(defmacro call-with-values (f g)
    `(apply ,f ,g))

yes, working hygenic macros were another thing I never got to...
instead I had a half-working macro system that I just used to implement
defmacro...