On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:47:46 -0400, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:

> 7 hours ago, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 May 2011 11:07:25 -0400, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 15 minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It was known behavior, left in place mostly because I didn't
>> >> actually care  Any Scheme that behaves like Chibi in this case can
>> >> be fixed with: [...]  The actual fix in Chibi was just one line,
>> >> [...]
>>
>> > The question is still open, AFAICT: is the pre-fix problem something
>> > that is fine to have in an r5/7rs?  According to John, your bug fix
>> > was not needed.
>>
>> From my reading of the R5RS, I concur with John that the original
>> behavior of Chibi was not breaking compliance with the standard.
>> That is, R5RS and R6RS both allow implementations to do *whatever*
>> they want if a continuation expecting a single value receives more
>> than one value.
>
> That's *not* the chibi problem that I talked about.  To repeat:
>
>   (call-with-values
>     (lambda ()
>       (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (k) (k 1 2 3))))
>     (lambda (x y z) 'ok))
>
> the problem here is that the `k' continuation is one that expects
> three values, and it is given three values.

According to Alex, this bug is fixed in the head of the Chibi source, so I
mistakenly assumed you were talking about the other remaining issues with
Chib's multiple values semantics. Keeping track of the timestamps on all
of these messages can be...trying.

	Aaron W. Hsu

--
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

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