This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 89 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 89 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On 4/13/06, Eli Barzilay <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > It seems you're trying violently to misunderstand me: > > (You keep contradicting your own argument. At least IMO.) Not at all. But this is getting boring, don't you think? Ok, just one more time: 1) keyword arguments are useful, as a quick+dirty solution (you cited a sentence by Joe Marshall containing the word "hack", remember?) 2) This doesn't make them automatically good enough of what I consider as a SRFI, which should be of a higher standard (our opinions may differ here). > > > it's *too* easy: you quickly end up with a small set of functions > > with loads of keyword parameters and yet another open manual to > > consult. > > OK, consider what users need to know for a second. With common Scheme > code, if you want to extend a function in a way that doesn't break > existing code, you add optional arguments. Say you begin with > something like: > > (message-box <title> <prompt>) > > You then extend it with (in this order) a csutomizable button-spec > ('yes-no, 'ok-cancel, 'ok, default is 'ok), timeout (number of > seconds, or #f for no timeout), whether the dialog is on top of the > main application or not (defaults to #t), and a bgcolor (defaults to > (system-bg)): > > (message-box <title> <prompt> [buttons] [timeout] [on-top?] [bgcolor]) > > The defaults are the same as the original version -- so no change > needed there. Now you want to pop a blue message box, what do you do? > > (message-box "title" "prompt" 'ok #f #t "blue") > > ...and you need to read through that whole paragraph above to do this. > This is in contrast to > > (message-box "title" "prompt" :bgcolor "blue") > > with no knowledge of the rest. You'll always need the manual, but you > don't need to read it through to just change the bgcolor. (Eli, I know the difference between optional and keyword arguments, there is no need to explain the rationale of SRFI-89 to me again. I've read the document) What about: (message-box <title> <prompt> [<config-object>]) ? Configuration-objects could be composed, inherited, modified by accessors, whatever. I claim such an interface is cleaner, possibly less verbose and likely to be more efficient. And, if you desperately need it, use symbols as keywords and roll your own: (message-box 'title "hello" ...). No need for a distinct keyword type or ugly #! lambda-list markers (and a subsequent overcomplication of lamba-list processing). cheers, felix