[plt-scheme] PLT v 4.0 discussion - values

From: Neil Van Dyke (neil at neilvandyke.org)
Date: Thu Jun 5 20:43:14 EDT 2008

Mark Engelberg wrote at 06/05/2008 08:21 PM:
> Use of "values" seems to impose a higher burden on the caller,
> who needs to use special constructs (define/values, let/values, etc.)
> to capture and manipulate the multiple values.

FWIW, I think multiple-value returns are a great idea, and I wish I'd 
used them more in my earlier Scheme code.

I think the fact that  "let/values" appears to be a special construct is 
due to the historical artifact of "let" only supporting single-value 
binding clauses.

(Indeed, I believe that PLT actually implements "let" as syntactic sugar 
that expands to "let-values".)

I do long for the day that a standard backward-compatible multiple-value 
"let" is supported widely by Scheme implementations.

Posted on the users mailing list.