This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for ticket #193

cc


    

changetime

2011-09-11 07:43:44

component

WG1 - Core

description

Why not specifying that arguments in a procedure call should evaluate to exactly one value ?

Similarly binding init would evaluate to only one value.

id

193

keywords


    

milestone


    

owner

alexshinn

priority

major

reporter

medernac

resolution

wontfix

severity


    

status

closed

summary

values and procedure arguments

time

2011-05-21 14:28:52

type

defect

Changes

Change at time 2011-09-11 07:43:44

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

WG1 rejected this proposal.

oldvalue

4

raw-time

1315701824000000

ticket

193

time

2011-09-11 07:43:44

Change at time 2011-09-11 07:43:44

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

wontfix

oldvalue


    

raw-time

1315701824000000

ticket

193

time

2011-09-11 07:43:44

Change at time 2011-09-11 07:43:44

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

reopened

raw-time

1315701824000000

ticket

193

time

2011-09-11 07:43:44

Change at time 2011-05-30 22:49:32

author

medernac

field

comment

newvalue

No, the problem is about allowing or not values to interfere with another one.
For instance :
{{{
((lambda (X Y) ...) (values A B) (values))
}}}

Do we allow implementations to bind A to X and B to Y ? 


oldvalue

3

raw-time

1306770572000000

ticket

193

time

2011-05-30 22:49:32

Change at time 2011-05-30 22:49:32

author

medernac

field

resolution

newvalue


    

oldvalue

worksforme

raw-time

1306770572000000

ticket

193

time

2011-05-30 22:49:32

Change at time 2011-05-30 22:49:32

author

medernac

field

status

newvalue

reopened

oldvalue

closed

raw-time

1306770572000000

ticket

193

time

2011-05-30 22:49:32

Change at time 2011-05-29 19:50:50

author

alexshinn

field

comment

newvalue

The R5RS (and current draft) make it very specific that
passing MV to a continuation other than that created by
`call-with-values` is an error.  Unless you want to
strengthen this and require it to signal an error (thus
making extensions like the CL MV behavior) then there's
nothing to vote on.

oldvalue

2

raw-time

1306673450000000

ticket

193

time

2011-05-29 19:50:50

Change at time 2011-05-29 19:50:50

author

alexshinn

field

resolution

newvalue

worksforme

oldvalue


    

raw-time

1306673450000000

ticket

193

time

2011-05-29 19:50:50

Change at time 2011-05-29 19:50:50

author

alexshinn

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

new

raw-time

1306673450000000

ticket

193

time

2011-05-29 19:50:50

Change at time 2011-05-24 05:50:20

author

arcfide

field

comment

newvalue

IMO, better to take the R6RS language that the continuations of the arguments to a procedure call expect a single value, and that passing multiple values to a single-value continuation context is unspecified.

oldvalue

1

raw-time

1306191020000000

ticket

193

time

2011-05-24 05:50:20