Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!oz From: oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Multiple return values Message-ID: <22219@yunexus.YorkU.CA> Date: 4 Apr 91 08:18:09 GMT References: <1991Mar26.155905.12906@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> <1991Apr1.181633.12561@snitor.uucp> jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu writes: >My arm would need a lot of twisting to accept a proposal that requires >any of those decisions to be otherwise. This is significant, no doubt, but what exactly is it that makes you or others involved in this discussion think that there is sufficient interest within the scheme community [at large] to add new syntax/semantics for multiple return values to the language in the first place? Is it a foregone conclusion that one of these proposals [or one that is yet to come] will necessarily be adopted? Just curious. oz --- What ought to disturb us are not mistakes | Internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca in general, but only those of them that we | Uucp: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz are powerless to correct. -- David Miller | Phone: 1+416-736-5257-33976