Re: values->list elements

[Neil Jerram]

szgyg <address@hidden> writes:

> This isn't a new idea, but the original semantic.
>
> | (this is not a serious proposal for a language extension,
> | but only an example):
> | (1) Wherever n consecutive arguments might be written in
> |     a function call, one may instead write {f x1 ... xm}n,
> |     where n is a positive integer. The "function" f must
> |     return n values, which are used as n arguments
> |     in the function call.
> | (2) The primitive (values x1 ... xn) returns its n arguments
> |     as its n values. Thus writing "{values x1 ... xn}n" is
> |     the same as writing "x1 ... xn" as arguments in a
> |     function call.
>
> [Guy L. Steele: LAMBDA: The Ultimate Declarative, 1976, p 18-19]

Interesting!  So how come RnRS turned out not to include this?

Regards,
     Neil