Subject: Re: Macro question (bizarre)
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: 2000/03/20
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <8b49tq$90g1$>
Tom Breton  <> wrote:
| IOW, values is basically a backwards-compatibility thing.
| When that's *not* the case, simply returning a list is better in every
| way that springs to mind, IMO.

Actually, a third option -- which I find myself using a lot more often
than *either* multiple values or lists -- is to return a structure:

- It's relatively cheap to construct;

- It's cheaper than a list to access elements other than the first; and

- The slot names give you an element of self-documentation that's missing
  with either lists or MVs (that is, on the "values" side of MVs -- the
  using or destructuring side is of course quite self-documenting).

But like the other two, it's not always appropriate. So use the one that is.


p.s. In Schemes that don't have structures (there are still a few), I
sometimes return small vectors. That's yet another option in CL, too.

Rob Warnock, 41L-955
Applied Networking
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		Phone: 650-933-1673
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		PP-ASEL-IA
Mountain View, CA  94043