[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mutating C binding arguments?
From: |
Michael Livshin |
Subject: |
Re: mutating C binding arguments? |
Date: |
04 Oct 2000 21:02:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (20 Minutes to Nikko) |
"Lars J. Aas" <address@hidden> writes:
> : gh_call2( gh_lookup("values"), arg1, arg2 );
>
> While we're on the subject; am I understanding it correctly if I believe
> this call will never return?
why? `values' is just a procedure that builds and returns a data
structure. the only sensible thing to do with the result is to return
it, of course. and the caller must (per r5rs) expect multiple values.
[ now that you mention it, the idea to implement `values' as a throw
to the nearest `call-with-values' is... interesting. ]
--
HELP ME! HELP ME! MY PAPER FEED IS JAMMED! DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO
HAVE YOUR PAPER FEED JAMMED?
- mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/03
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/03
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/04
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?,
Michael Livshin <=
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Lars J. Aas, 2000/10/05
- Re: mutating C binding arguments?, Michael Livshin, 2000/10/05