[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issue: NTH-VALUE (Version 4)

>If NTH-VALUE passes, this could get interesting.  FLOOR would have to be able
>to tell, for example, that only its second value was going to get used, and
>avoid computing the first value.  This may not make a lot of sense for FLOOR,
>but there may be other functions where it does.

Nah, it would never be *required*.  p134 is talking about a "standard idiom"
for how a programmer could express the desire.  A really smart compiler
that is working on an inline function that it knows a LOT about
*maybe* would make such an optimzation.

  You make a good point reminding us that (VALUES (...)) 
is a special case of NTH-VALUE, ie (NTH-VALUE 0 (...))

Are we going to see an extension for MULTIPLE NTH-VALUES?
(multiple-value-bind (a c e)
   (NTH-VALUE '(0 2 4) (...))

Equivalent to the request for NIL binding:
(multiple-value-bind (a nil c nil e) (...)

Yes, of course i just kidding... :)