multiple values.

[George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>]

[1] I think your last note has some incorrect assumptions about how
    the procedure call mechanism will work on future Lisp machines.
    Not that the assumption isn't reasonable, but as I recall the procedure
    ARGUMENT mechanism and the mechanism for passing the back
    the FIRST VALUE was designed to be inconsistent with the mechanism
    for passing the rest of the values. This puts a whole different
    perspective on the language semantics.
[2] At least one implementation, NIL, guessed that there would be
    demand in the future for various lambda extensions, so a
    sufficiently general lambda-grovelling mechanism was painlessly
    introduce from the begining.