[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Scott.Fahlman at CMU-10A
- Subject: multiple values.
- From: George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1982 16:14:00 -0000
- Cc: Common-lisp at SU-AI
 I think your last note has some incorrect assumptions about how
the procedure call mechanism will work on future Lisp machines.
Not that the assumption isn't reasonable, but as I recall the procedure
ARGUMENT mechanism and the mechanism for passing the back
the FIRST VALUE was designed to be inconsistent with the mechanism
for passing the rest of the values. This puts a whole different
perspective on the language semantics.
 At least one implementation, NIL, guessed that there would be
demand in the future for various lambda extensions, so a
sufficiently general lambda-grovelling mechanism was painlessly
introduce from the begining.