[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Naive T Design Questions
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 88 16:18:00 EDT
From: Jonathan A Rees <JAR@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 88 20:49:54 EDT
From: James J. Hunt <jjh at ll-vlsi.arpa>
3. Why was VALUES renamed to RETURN? RETURN seems to imply change of the
control flow which return does not do!
Invoking a continuation is a return. RETURN invokes a continuation.
Yeah, but continuations get invoked all the time without RETURNs. I
think VALUES is a more tasteful name, even independent of any desire I
might have not to wrench unnecessarily the thought habits of Common
Besides, invoking a continuation isn't exactly a return, in the older
sense in which we're used to using the word, although a return in that
sense is indeed a particular very common form of invoking a
6. Is this really the best way to implement self evaluating keywords in T:
Actually, in T you can use ordinary symbols instead of keywords, since
you don't have to worry about the vagaries of multiple packages:
(foo 'bar 3)
Right on. If we hadn't had multiple packages, we would never have
needed keywords, and "'foo" is the same length as ":foo".
You could always define ":" to be the same as "'", if it's that
important to you to visually distinguish symbols used as keywords from
symbols used in other ways.