|
| From: | Ludovic Courtès |
| Subject: | bug#17474: Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem convenient |
| Date: | Mon, 12 May 2014 17:53:58 +0200 |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.130009 (Ma Gnus v0.9) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
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’.
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |