Re: Issue: NTH-VALUE (Version 4)

[Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>]

    re: Message from KMP of 12 Jan 89, 14:22 EST
     
    I don't recall from the proposal, but is it true that the syntax
    of NTH-VALUE is (NTH-VALUE value-returning-form index), rather
    than (NTH-VALUE index value-returning-form)?  Why isn't it the
    latter, a la NTH and NTHCDR?  Not only is it more consistent with
    NTH and NTHCDR that way, but it is much easier to eyeball-parse
    (NTH 2 (big hairy expression)) than (NTH (big hairy expression)
    2).
     
Kent was wrong, the syntax is (NTH-VALUE index value-returning-form).

    Apropos of multiple-value issues, shouldn't there be a portable
    way for a function that is about to return multiple values to be
    able to determine whether or not all of those values were actually
    going to be used, so it could bypass computation of extra values
    if they weren't going to be needed?  Refer to CLtL, p. 134:
      
Sounds like it might be a useful feature, but it also sounds like a
new feature proposal too late in the game.