[plt-scheme] Some fine distinctions

Nice! I was not aware of this, but I've looked at the SRFI and it is  
indeed exactly what I was thinking of (with the additional distinction  
between evaluated and non-evaluated arguments).
And it's in PLT scheme too ;-)

Thanks for pointing this out,

-- Éric


On May 12, 2009, at 19:41 , Andreas Rottmann wrote:

> Eric Tanter <etanter at dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
>
>> Right, even though that is not so nice to have to write that at each
>> use site. Or alternatively to export any possible order for users to
>> use.
>>
>> In a more general case, one could imagine something like:
>>
>> (f ? 3 ? ? 5) to say " here are the 2nd and 5th parameters".
>>
> FWIW, this is exactly what SRFI-26 does:
>
> (define (f x y z)
>  (+ (* x y) z))
>
> ((cut f <> 3 <>) 42 66) ; => 192
>
> Cheers, Rotty