Re: [Chicken-users] Re: A few questions

[Elf]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, John Cowan wrote:

> Elf scripsit:
>
> > i take the number of srfi's relating to binding (values ...) clauses in
> > different ways as evidence of its confusing and unnecessary nature. :)
>
> Whereas I think of TMTOWTDI as one of Scheme's virtues.  Anyhow, we've

i would agree, on the whole.  however, this much duplication for exactly
identical attempted functionality is a bit odd.

> come a long way from being required to use call-values.  It also occurs
> to me that rec and let-values and all need not expand into call-values --
> that's just the *portable* expansion of them.

they'll all be call-with-values on the inside, or the equivalent thereof.
receive is call-with-values without the keyword 'lambda':
(receive (vars ...) generator consumer) ->
 call-with-values (lambda () generator) (lambda (vars...) consumer)) 
let-values, same thing.  theyre all just different ways of deleting the
word lambda from call-with-values but retaining the rest of the structure
in random orders (hence my ongoing confusion).  how would one implement
this efficiently without using call-with-values?

-elf