Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> (...)
>
>>     The "values" function should be defined better about the equivalence:
>>        (values X) == X
> (...)
>
> The real definition is "passes its arguments to its continuation".

    Thanks for this clarification (and sorry for answering late, I was
far from any computer for 3 days).

>> A rough implementation of this function is:
>> (define (values . things)
>>    (lambda (f) (apply f things)))

    For me, the problem was that I suspect some interpreters to use
such a rough implementation. MIT Scheme, for example. But may be they
are not fully R(5|6)RS-compliant and they should signal that within
their documentation.

    Cheers,

J.-M.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports