Re: Snide remarks

[Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-AI>]

   Your postscript seems to imply that there is something wrong with multiple
      value;  Really?  Don't they work on the LISPM?
     "PS. The reason why just returning the transformed form is better
      for compatibility is that it doesn't require multiple values."

I thought that Maclisp didn't have multiple value returning, and I was
concerned about compatibility with it.

Maybe it has been implemented in Maclisp.  I could easily have
forgotten the announcement.  If so, I think it's a good thing that it
was.  Meanwhile, my concern with compatibility with a system you
maintain still does not deserve contempt from you even if it was based
on a mistaken factual belief.