Re: parallel with no exprs

[Kevin Ryde]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Oops.  The second lambda should have (x) as formal parameters.
> But this error is independent from the problem we are discussing.
> (parallel) correctly expands to (begin).

Are you sure you want it that way?  I guess it'd be necessary to
document that parallel of N forms returns N values except that 0 forms
returns 1 unspecified value.

Maybe 0 forms shouldn't be documented at all, could quietly ignore it
as too degenerate.

(I'm not especially worried one way or the other, I only arrived at it
from looking to add to the manual.)

> In our implementation,
> (begin) evaluates to #<unspecified> which is 1 value, so the second
> lambda must take 1 argument.

Yes I thought it might be the unspecified literalism, or rather the
literalism of unspecified :-).