Re: small Q

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: small Q
• From: "Michael T. Richter" <mtr@igs.net>
• Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 13:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
• Organization: Bell Solutions
• References: <398EA566.8AB90683@dial.pipex.com> <Gsyj5.3194$pu4.263441@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> <8mmvgo$enu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <398F2D0B.EB3781D5@lotus.com>
• Reply-To: "Michael T. Richter" <mtr@ottawa.com>
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:12596 comp.lang.scheme:30774

Brian Campbell <Brian_Campbell@lotus.com> wrote in message
398F2D0B.EB3781D5@lotus.com">news:398F2D0B.EB3781D5@lotus.com...
> Since I'm comming from a long history of one return value
> programming languages (Scheme R4RS, SmallTalk, C, Java,
> PASCAL, etc.), could someone describe where multiple
> return values would be useful and not just a convenience?

Why is "convenience" not useful?  Personally I *LIKE* having convenient
features in my languages.  If I didn't, I'd (still) be programming by
entering raw binary object code.

• small Q
• From: jt <gkt37@dial.pipex.com>
• Re: small Q
• From: "Scott McKay" <swm@mediaone.net>
• Re: small Q
• From: oodl@my-deja.com
• Re: small Q
• From: Brian Campbell <Brian_Campbell@lotus.com>

• Prev: Re: Dylan (DYnamic LANguage) -- what's the deal?
• Next: Re: small Q
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread