Re: proposed getitimer and setitimer functions

[Rob Browning]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> (multiple values are in R5RS)

Oh, right.  I knew that at one point, but had forgotten...

> Yes, and I hope to adopt more Common Lispish semantics in the future
> in that you can silently ignore additional return values.  The current
> implementation of values and call-with-values is not really the Right
> Thing, I'd say.

So do we want to use multiple values here?  Does anyone have a good
argument either way?  It could make it cheap for a compiler to toss
the additional prev-timer value.  It's too bad a multiple value
returning function can't tell during execution which values the caller
will actually use :>

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD