maybe-let*
Shiro Kawai
(03 Jul 2020 03:10 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Jul 2020 05:54 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Jul 2020 07:22 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let* Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (03 Jul 2020 17:19 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Jul 2020 17:38 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
John Cowan
(04 Jul 2020 00:47 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe
(04 Jul 2020 01:47 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(04 Jul 2020 09:55 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
John Cowan
(05 Jul 2020 22:40 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let*
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(07 Jul 2020 14:19 UTC)
|
Re: maybe-let* Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 03 Jul 2020 17:19 UTC
I'd prefer to avoid adding let-values syntax to the basic maybe/either-let* forms. (Anecdotally, some Schemers dislike let-values and let*-values merely because of the extra parens, and, while procedures can always return multiple values, it's the rare Scheme programmer who uses the multiple-value-aware forms everywhere.) I'd also prefer to avoid mixing single- and multiple-value syntax (à la SRFI 71, for example). My suggestion to John was to add maybe/either-let*-values forms, which handle (<formals> <container-expression>) claws in a way analogous to let-values, but with the unwrapping of the value of <container-expression>. (The (id) and ((expr)) claws have exactly the same semantics that they do in the -let* forms.) They're simple variations on maybe/either-let* and easy to add; programmers who only intend to use single-valued containers can pretend they don't exist. Regards, -- Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz> "Searching for fulfillment in this compact subset of existence... My life must have a convergent subsequence somewhere... out there..." --Abstruse Goose