Re: Multiple return values

WStreett@shell.monmouth.com.spamguard (Wilbur Streett)
18 Apr 1997 00:41:00 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Multiple return values Arthur.Chance@Smallworld.co.uk (1997-04-16)
Re: Multiple return values WStreett@shell.monmouth.com.spamguard (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values smryan@mail.com (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values icedancer@ibm.net (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values hbaker@netcom.com (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values (Mars Saxman) marssaxman%sprynet.com.antispam@nac (marssaxman) (1997-04-18)
Re: Multiple return values preston@tera.com (1997-04-18)
[28 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: WStreett@shell.monmouth.com.spamguard (Wilbur Streett)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.misc
Date: 18 Apr 1997 00:41:00 -0400
Organization: Monmouth Internet
References: 97-04-091
Keywords: design

Arthur.Chance@Smallworld.co.uk (Arthur Chance) wrote:


>A thought struck me over the weekend while rereading the "Lambda: the
>Ultimate <foo>" papers:
>
>Most programming languages allow procedures with multiple arguments
>(in some cases allowing them to be used in curried form as well), but
>very few languages allow multiple return values, in spite of the fact
>that multiple results *are* multiple arguments when you're wearing
>CPS-tinted glasses. Why is this?


I think that the reasoning is that the function returned a completion
value in the return, but any other variables were passed through the
arguments themselves. Given the call structure of the earlier
computers, (at least the ones that my father worked on), checking to
see if the function completed successfully was typically all that was
passed in the return value.


Wilbur
--

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.