[Larceny-users] writing values writes the first value only

[will at ccs.neu.edu]

Felix Klock wrote:
> So I was just musing... if we throw portability across different  
> schemes out the window, but still wish to retain backwards  
> compatibility with past variants of Larceny... how hard do you think  
> it would be to make procedure-arity "work" on first class  
> continuations in Larceny?

As Larceny is currently constructed, I don't think there's
any reliable way to distinguish ordinary one-argument
continuations from command continuations.  This is wired
deeply into the system, at the level of Twobit's A-normal
form.

Since the R6RS requires command continuations to accept
any number of arguments, Larceny's ordinary continuations
have to accept any number of arguments also.  To change
that, we'd have to change some of Larceny's basic
invariants and one of Twobit's primary intermediate
languages.

Will