multiple values

["Guillermo J. Rozas" <jinx@hpesogg.hp.com>]

      On the other hand, the
    opposition, with whom I thought myself allied, was arguing that continuations
    produced by "with-values" differed only in arity from ordinary
    continuations.

Not quite.  There are two issues at stake:

A) (values e) == e

B) Are implicit continuations modelled as

(lambda (value) ...)

or as

(lambda (value . ignore) ...)


I would like to see A hold true, and B adopt the latter solution.
This is impractical politically, so I will grudgingly accept B to be
left unspecified.

Issue A, if rejected, would force two kinds of continuations.
Issue B does not.  It just determines (or fails to determine) the
arity of implicit continuations, but they are no different from
"explicit" continuations.