David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> R5RS defines ‘values’ as: >> >> (define (values . things) >> (call-with-current-continuation >> (lambda (cont) (apply cont things)))) >> >> Thus, a conforming implementation must raise a run-time error when the >> continuation of a (values) form expects one or more values. > > No. From R5RS: > > -- procedure: call-with-current-continuation proc > > [...] > > The escape procedure accepts the same number of arguments as the > continuation to the original call to > call-with-current-continuation. Except for continuations created > by the `call-with-values' procedure, all continuations take > exactly one value. The effect of passing no value or more than > one value to continuations that were not created by > call-with-values is unspecified.
Oh indeed, I stand corrected. > So this behavior is neither out of line, nor against the standard. It > is merely a more convenient behavior for a situation that the standard > left unspecified. Right. I’m not completely convinced it makes sense to “specify” the zero values case in this way, but I’d like to hear what others think. Thanks, Ludo’.
