> I love multiple return values. Especially proper zero return values as > Ikarus, Chez, and PLT (and probably others) do, which nothing else > (lists, records, etc.) can emulate (I believe).
The sentiment of my comment was actually that the syntax for multiple values in Scheme is still wanting. Of course there have been many SRFIs that try to improve the situation, and let(*)-values in R6RS is nice. I think the standard let should just allow any number of values - are there good reasons for including let and let-values rather than just a let which means let-values (possibly with fewer parentheses in the syntax...)?
