The recent discussion over binding the "rest" of the values seems to me to be
a proposal for a (very small) pattern language, and an extension of `let' to
allow for patterns in the LHS of each clause.

So, perhaps this SRFI would be better suited by developing a thorough pattern
language, which `let' could be extended to use.  The "values" part of this
proposal would simply fall out of such an approach.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps this SRFI should remain within it's current
scope, but in that case I would suggest leaving the extension of `let' in such
a way that it is still possible to extend `let' to use patterns in the future.
  For this reason, I suggest keeping the `values' keyword that Neil W. Van
Dyke recently argued against.

David