Neil W. Van Dyke wrote:
> The "values" keyword as a kludge to support rest-lists, however, strikes
> me as a syntactically ugly way to support an operation that I'd expect
> to use only rarely.

Same with me, but the expected ugliness will be low:

        E{ugliness} = Sum[ugliness(case) * Prob{case} : case].

And if you really need the rest-list thing (the day will come),
the meaning will at least be obvious.

> In summary, I'd really like to see "let", "let*", "letrec", and
> "letrec*" extended for multiple-value, but would like to drop the
> "(value ...)" syntax, even if that means dropping rest-list support.

At the point I decide to drop rest-list values the SRFI will be withdrawn, I promise.
The whole point of this SRFI is to integrate multiple values in all their beauty
smoothly into the Scheme language.

Sebastian