Your uses of values are covered in apply/map/append/list trickeries. Using values might be more elegant, but yes, it's currently not possible.
On Jul 11, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Laurent wrote: > In some postfix languages, if a procedure returns multiple values, these > values can be used directly as multiple arguments to another procedure call, > i.e., they are "spliced" in the latter call. > In an extended Racket, this would look like this: > > (+ (values 1 2) (values 3 4)) > would be equivalent to > (+ 1 2 3 4) > > (map values '(0 1 2) '(a b c)) > would return > '(0 a 1 b 2 c) > > (call-with-values (lambda()(my-proc ....)) list) > would simply be > (list (my-proc ....)) > > (values (values 1 2) (values 'a 'b)) > would be equivalent to > (values 1 2 'a 'b) > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the cases where this feature should > be useful currently throws an error, so it would probably break only very > little. > > Such a missing feature tickles me from time to time, and I often find that > Racket `values' system is too cumbersome to be used more often, i.e., you > need to go through stages of `call-with-values', 'let/define-values', `(apply > values ....)', etc. and I often find myself not wanting to go down this road. > > IMO, `values' is *meant* to be the way I describe above: `values' is exactly > like `list', except than instead of encapsulating the values in a container, > it splices them in-place. > > Do you see some disadvantages of using values this way? > For example, in some occasions, for things like > (define (foo x) (values x x)) > (map + (foo '(1 2 3))) > it may be more difficult to infer that there are actually 2 lists in the map, > but to me it's just a matter of style/taste/comments/documentation, not a > matter of feature. > > Laurent > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
