Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax John Cowan (06 Jan 2013 17:37 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax Peter Bex (06 Jan 2013 18:57 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax Alex Shinn (07 Jan 2013 02:18 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax John Cowan (07 Jan 2013 02:46 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax Alex Shinn (07 Jan 2013 02:48 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax John Cowan (07 Jan 2013 03:21 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax Peter Bex (07 Jan 2013 08:35 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax Andy Wingo (07 Jan 2013 11:28 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax Alex Shinn (07 Jan 2013 14:57 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax John Cowan 07 Jan 2013 03:20 UTC

Peter Bex scripsit:

> This looks interesting, but will require some more experimentation
> before being generally acceptable, I think.  I'm wary of things like
> this, as it seems a lot like the unholy idea that all DSSSL-style
> keywords must be bound.

Apropos that, you might want to look at KeywordArgumentsArcfide, which
requires keywords (not DSSSL keywords, but colon-ized keywords) to be
bound.  The nice feature is that it's pure R5RS + records.

--
They tried to pierce your heart                 John Cowan
with a Morgul-knife that remains in the         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
wound.  If they had succeeded, you would
become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord.         --Gandalf

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports