s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 13:40 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 15:15 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 15:56 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:19 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:32 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 17:54 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 18:07 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 21:27 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 21:36 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 23:03 UTC)
&key vs :key in the lambda list Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:17 UTC)
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 23:18 UTC)
Re: &key vs :key in the lambda list Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:27 UTC)
Syntax for hygienic vs non-hygienic keywords Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 23:33 UTC)
Re: allow-other-keys bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 19:51 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (29 Oct 2019 16:33 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 16:53 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion bil@xxxxxx (29 Oct 2019 17:10 UTC)
Including 177 in s7? Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 17:34 UTC)

&key vs :key in the lambda list Lassi Kortela 01 Nov 2019 23:17 UTC

> Yes, I agree that keywords should be non-hygienic.  The problem with using
> :key in lambda/kw is that it looks like a keyword itself.  This only
> matters if the identifiers are going to look like (or be) keywords
> themselves.

The names of keyword arguments in the lambda list are ordinary symbols
in all current Schemes with native keywords. They are also ordinary
symbols in Common Lisp and in Clojure
(https://clojure.org/guides/destructuring#_keyword_arguments).

In Racket the keyword argument appears as both a symbol and a keyword in
the lambda list, so that's a half-exception to the rule. SRFI 89 uses
keyword objects; that's the only full exception I've found.

IMHO the above sets a strong precedent to use ordinary symbols.

If argument names themselves looked like keywords, I agree that &key
would be better.