> Being familiar with CL, I can see these features came out of necessity, and
> I've used them in number
> of occasions. I do agree that the syntax can be a bit simpler if they don't
> need to keep the backard
> compatibility.

I agree. It's one of those things where every part is perfectly logical
and fits well with its neighbors, but when you put them all together,
the result is a bit bewildering. Many things in CL are like that. "Too
much of a good thing is wonderful" must have been the design motto :)

> Actually, I even see a feature missing from CL, which is to get &rest
> arguments minus processed
> keyword arguments.  (Hence Gauche supports it).
Do you mean that when allow-other-keys is given, those "other" keys and
their values end up in their own association list?