Subject: Re: bug#17474: Making *unspecified* equivalent to (values) would seem convenient

From: [email-masked] (Ludovic Courtès)
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 17:53:58 +0200

R5RS defines ‘values’ as:

     (define (values . things)
       (call-with-current-continuation
         (lambda (cont) (apply cont things))))

Thus, a conforming implementation must raise a run-time error when the
continuation of a (values) form expects one or more values.

Ludo’.