Re: multiple-values and chain-and

Show/hide message thread

New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Arthur A. Gleckler (23 Aug 2020 18:13 UTC)

Re: New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (24 Aug 2020 10:16 UTC)

Re: New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Adam Nelson (28 Aug 2020 02:29 UTC)

Re: New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (28 Aug 2020 05:41 UTC)

Re: New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (28 Aug 2020 06:00 UTC)

Re: New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Aug 2020 17:32 UTC)

Re: New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Adam Nelson (31 Aug 2020 17:03 UTC)

Re: New draft (#3) and last call for comments on SRFI 197: Pipeline Operators Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Aug 2020 17:42 UTC)

multiple-values and chain-and Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide (24 Aug 2020 11:51 UTC)

Re: multiple-values and chain-and Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (24 Aug 2020 12:02 UTC)

Re: multiple-values and chain-and Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide (24 Aug 2020 14:03 UTC)

Re: multiple-values and chain-and Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (24 Aug 2020 14:13 UTC)

Re: multiple-values and chain-and Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide (29 Aug 2020 11:38 UTC)

Re: multiple-values and chain-and Adam Nelson (28 Aug 2020 02:47 UTC)

Re: multiple-values and chain-and Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide 29 Aug 2020 11:38 UTC

Show/hide attachments

Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> writes:

> But I am wondering whether we really need this complication. Wouldn't
> an explicit "let*-values" be easier here?

It might be, yes. Maybe my usecase would be better served by using a
local lambda.

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken