> I think, I'll stop here. You won't convince me that this approach is > practicable anytime soon. ;-)
I certainly won't try too hard either. I'm not questioning here whether it is immediately practicable to implement (maybe not, and in case a very long discussion) but is it potentially useful? (A shorter discussion.) In answer to your questions: The name of a returned value, of course, \does become part of the interface. Perhaps library writers would want to have a discipline of using their own internal names and then passing them out in one final values call inside of a let. As to the second: the recursive (bar ...) call has no effect on any foo-values used outside of it, whether before or after. This accords with our expectation for how functions work. Think of Values as a magical macro that \at \runtime reaches outside of the function it was used in and writes a little let inside the calling function's scope. Is this possible? I don't think so. Presumably it would have to be part of the language, just like Values is part of Common Lisp. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
