Mike Sperber wrote:
> I'm not sure what VALUES->LIST is supposed to be---given the symmetry
> between return values and arguments, I'd say it'd have to be
>
> (define (values->list . vals)
>   vals)
>
> This procedure is called LIST in R5RS, so LIST-VALUES isn't a name
> symmetric with anything.  UNLIST seems fine.
>
> Or am I missing something?

I think you do. Please refer to the previous incarnation of this discussion:

        http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-71/mail-archive/msg00015.html
        http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-71/mail-archive/msg00019.html

Aparently there is some comment missing in the SRFI text.
 
Sebastian.