[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New draft



Marc Feeley <feeley@iro.umontreal.ca> 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 . "forcer@forcix.cx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/";)
 (gpg   . "1024D/028AF63C")   (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))