[R6RS] summary of decisions regarding multiple values

[dyb at cs.indiana.edu]

> Kent wrote:
> > > > Not exactly.  The traditional CPS form of (lambda () (f (g))) is
> > > > (lambda (k) (g (lambda (v) (f v k)))).
> > >
> > > The proper translation of that CPS-transform into
> > > Scheme is (lambda (k) (g (lambda v (apply f k v)))).
> >
> > Under your proposal, this won't toss the extra values returned by g, will
> > it?  Won't f complain about receiving the wrong number of arguments?
>
> Had you stated the traditional CPS transform correctly,
> the transformed version would have used the transformed
> f and g instead of the original.  (Notice, for example,
> that g takes zero arguments in the original but one in
> the transform.  That's because they're really two
> different functions.)  The transforms of f and g would
> include an analogue of your wrapper that discards extra
> arguments and uses #!unspecified if there are none.

If the transform of f and g were to discard extra arguments and use
#!unspecified if there are none, then they wouldn't signal an error when
given too many or two few arguments, which they are required to do
in your proposal.

Kent