Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!mccaugh
From: mccaugh@s.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Language Tenets (was Re: Double
Message-ID: <208100004@s.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 89 05:47:00 GMT
References: <747@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:skye.ed.ac.uk:747:s.cs.uiuc.edu:208100004:000:856
Nf-From: s.cs.uiuc.edu!mccaugh    Aug 22 00:47:00 1989


jeff@aiai.uucp in s.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.lang.misc writes:

> In article <1242@quintus.UUCP> pds@quintus.UUCP (Peter Schachte) writes:
> >My point was that if you allow some expressions to return multiple
> >values and not allow those to be nested, and still allow the other kind
> >that can be nested but can't return multiple values, you really confuse
> >the idea of an expression.
 
As I read it, the objection raised was that the LIFO behavior of scalar-
valued expressions was apparently not being extended to multiple-value ones,
to which I would also take exception: that LIFO behavior is expressed in the
very syntax of the programming language and appears to have served well for
so long; why abort it in the case of multiple-valued expressions? Perhaps
the definition of "multiple-valued" needs clarification here: does it refer
to data-aggregates?