[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 89 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 89 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.



Per Bothner scripsit:

> As long as one can handle computed keywords using (apply ...) or some
> similar higher-order function, then I really don't care about computed
> keyword support in the "sugared syntax".

I don't see the use case for computed keywords even in APPLY.  I do
see the use case for passing *arguments* designated by keywords using
APPLY.

Under my first proposal, APPLY will expect the required arguments
followed by the keyword-value arguments in alphabetical order by
keyword (using some procedure or syntax for the "unspecified argument"
value).  Under my second proposal, APPLY will expect the required
arguments followed by a final argument in the form of an a-list.

-- 
That you can cover for the plentiful            John Cowan
and often gaping errors, misconstruals,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and disinformation in your posts                cowan@ccil.org
through sheer volume -- that is another
misconception.  --Mike to Peter