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

Re: Alternative formulations of keywords

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 88 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 88 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Eli Barzilay scripsit:

> (I'll be using the syntax from our library, no time to read Marc's
> syntax, sorry.)
> (define (assoc x l #!key test)
>   ... assoc using `test' to find an item ...)
> ;; searches for an x association in foo's table, same keywords as `assoc'
> (define (search x foo . r)
>   (apply assoc x (foo-table foo) r))

Ah.  But this does not require computed keywords as such; it simply
requires that whatever keywords are mapped into is a proper Scheme
object.  Under my #1, the keywords become a list of values and
#!missing's in a fixed order; under my #2, they become an a-list.
In either case, your SEARCH works correctly.

Computed keywords proper require a use case in which, given

	(define (foo x &key test) ...)

the call (foo bar baz zam) works iff the value of baz is the symbol TEST.
This might be a Good Thing, but I'd still like a use case.

John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Thor Heyerdahl recounts his attempt to prove Rudyard Kipling's theory
that the mongoose first came to India on a raft from Polynesia.
        --blurb for Rikki-Kon-Tiki-Tavi