[plt-scheme] keyword arguments (in v4.0, maybe)

From: Dimitris Vyzovitis (vyzo at media.mit.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 12 13:46:04 EDT 2007

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Eli Barzilay wrote:

> On Jun 12, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> >
> > So probably `procedure?' should return #f for things that are like
> > procedures, but that require some keyword (as opposed to things that
> > work like procedures and accept keyword-based arguments, but all the
> > keyword arguments all optional). Then, the above remains true for
> > procedures.
> >
> > Meanwhile, it's true that there's a kind of infection to the design,
> > in that many tools and libraries should be made to work with both
> > procedures and keyword-requiring things. But maybe working only for
> > procedures (that don't require any keywords) is a reasonable
> > specification for other tools and libraries.
> >
> > What examples do we have, other than `trace'?
> I grepped the PLT tree for other examples.  This is a summary of
> things I found.  (Some of these don't apply, some might apply in the
> future.  I'm just trying to provide a quick overview, not a proper
> analysis.)
> ...

All this sounds incredibly complicated and major code breakage inducing.
What's wrong with paying a price for keywords that need it dynamically?
Why not work on refining the  kw lib to be more efficient (perhaps
use a parameter) instead?

-- vyzo

Posted on the users mailing list.