Re: parallel with no exprs

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

No.  In fact, I'm not sure at all.  In fact,

I am no longer the Guile developer who says "(parallel) should expand
to (begin)".  I am now the Guile developer who says "(parallel) should
expand to (values)"!

Please do apply your patch.

(Sorry for not paying attention.)

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

Good thing to express things with words...

>> 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 :-).

The question is if (begin) --> #<unspecified> is correct.  Probably
so, because (begin) is a sequence and it should probably always return
1 value...

M