The name of "keyword-call"
John Cowan
(22 Oct 2019 19:42 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
Lassi Kortela
(22 Oct 2019 19:56 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Oct 2019 06:00 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call" Lassi Kortela (23 Oct 2019 07:32 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
Rhys Ulerich
(23 Oct 2019 12:10 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Oct 2019 13:37 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
John Cowan
(23 Oct 2019 13:52 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
Lassi Kortela
(23 Oct 2019 14:03 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
John Cowan
(23 Oct 2019 14:23 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Oct 2019 14:34 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call"
John Cowan
(23 Oct 2019 15:47 UTC)
|
Re: The name of "keyword-call" Lassi Kortela 23 Oct 2019 07:31 UTC
> What about overloading "apply"? In other words, "apply" would become > the universal method to call procedures with a variable number of > arguments (positional and keyword arguments). > > I find this idea intriguing. Implementing this may need identifier > syntax, though, so that the procedure "apply" can be overloaded with a > macro "apply". Ordinary procedure calls (including `apply`) should be overloaded in R7RS-large if keyword arguments are accepted into the standard. 177 has to be portable to so many Schemes that it needs a solution where one can just import a library without modifying the Scheme implementation (of course, if a Scheme provides an optimized solution, so much the better). Is it portable to override `apply` with a custom version via import? Even if it is, it may be a bit too magic to my taste. I'd prefer the base language to make decisions about basic syntax, and use fairly obvious macros for extensions.