On 12/14/2012 04:36 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Indeed, it's not the best example: a better one is a procedure
> that returns an undefined value, rather than a primitive syntax
> form.  The idea is that it should be possible to call an unknown
> procedure without having to defend oneself against receiving
> multiple values quite as carefully as would be required if all
> mutators truly returned no values (as opposed to a no-value value).

When would you ever need to do that?  If you don't need the result,
don't use it.  If you do need the result, you need to know something
about it. If you're some general meta-function (like a variant of
apply) then you need to handle the general case (with multiple
values).
--
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

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