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.
Marc Feeley <email@example.com> writes: > Perhaps the SRFI spec is unclear. Can you help me understand why you > interpreted the spec incorrectly so that I can improve the spec? No, the SRFI spec is not unclear, I am just unable to read it. I misread the phrase „in the order they occur in the formal parameter list“ somehow, and thought the optional arguments are treated first. Thanks for pointing out that I was mistaken there. I don't think I made it clear enough in my first post, so let me be explicit again: This SRFI is a vast improvement over all the named argument specification I have seen so far. Thanks a lot. Regards, -- Jorgen -- ((email . "firstname.lastname@example.org") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/") (gpg . "1024D/028AF63C") (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))