[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: values->list elements
From: |
Jonathan Wilson |
Subject: |
Re: values->list elements |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:02:54 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) |
Hi szgyg,
szgyg wrote:
No, this is impossible without redefining +. A macro produces 1 sexp,
not more.
This is exactly what I am getting at. values does return more than 1
sexp, but the mechanisms for using that are clumsy and painful. It
seems that if values returns multiple s-expressions, then they should be
treated as multiple s-expressions. In between a set of parentheses, N
s-expressions are usually treated as N elements of a list. Why should
values be any different?
(list 0 (values 1 2) 3)
==>
(0 #<values(1 2)> 3)
This is strange. If we had
(list 0 (values 1 2) 3)
==>
(0 1 2 3)
Then multiple values would actually be useful.
Regards,
Jon
- values->list elements, Jon Wilson, 2006/06/12
- Re: values->list elements, szgyg, 2006/06/13
- Re: values->list elements,
Jonathan Wilson <=
- Re: values->list elements, szgyg, 2006/06/16
- Re: values->list elements, Neil Jerram, 2006/06/16
- Re: values->list elements, szgyg, 2006/06/16
- Re: values->list elements, Jon Wilson, 2006/06/18
- Re: values->list elements, Per Bothner, 2006/06/18
Re: values->list elements, Neil Jerram, 2006/06/13
Re: values->list elements, Neil Jerram, 2006/06/13