FWIW, several years ago, I implemented a wrapper for "#%app" that supported this, as an exercise and without actually using it, but I kept it in mind.

I use multiple-values a lot, including in named-"let" recursion, and, since that multiple-value-splicing "#%app" exercise, I have noticed times when it would have been a win. But I have also noticed at least as many times when I had a coding error that multiple-value-splicing would've obscured. I intuitively think it would be bad for readability, but I don't have even anecdotal data for that.

Of course, people with other coding styles or different kinds of programs would put different weights on the pros and cons. Do you think people would be happy with an "app" macro that they'd use only when then wanted to so an apply with multiple-values splicing? It's easy to implement in an inefficient way (below is such an inefficient implementation I made for a blog post a long time ago):

(define-syntax app
 (syntax-rules ()
   ((_ PROC)         (PROC))
   ((_ PROC ARG ...) (%app:1 (ARG ...) () (PROC)))))

(define-syntax %app:1
 (syntax-rules ()
   ((_ () (BIND ...) (PROC VAR ...))
    (let (BIND ...)
      (apply PROC (append VAR ...))))
   ((_ (ARG0 ARG1 ...) (BIND ...) (PROC VAR ...))
    (%app:1 (ARG1 ...)
            (BIND ... (actual (call-with-values (lambda () ARG0) list)))
            (PROC VAR ... actual)))))

(app vector 1 (values 2 3) 4 (list 5) (values 6 7))
;;==> #(1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7)

I haven't really needed such a macro myself so far. Before I'd want that macro, I would want things like multiple-value support in "let".

Neil V.

Laurent wrote at 07/11/2013 08:56 AM:
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
____________________
  Racket Users list:
  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

Reply via email to