Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

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 17:53 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (29 Oct 2019 18:06 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion John Cowan (01 Nov 2019 21:26 UTC)
Re: s7 suggestion Lassi Kortela (01 Nov 2019 21:35 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-Wi├čkirchen (29 Oct 2019 16:32 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)

Syntax for hygienic vs non-hygienic keywords Lassi Kortela 01 Nov 2019 23:33 UTC

>> I had understood that you liked me (not too serious) idea of using colon
>> names for non-hygienic keywords and colon-free names for hygienic
>> keywords.
>
> I love that idea, but at the call site (call/kw).

Just realized it doesn't work with the new keyword call syntax either
that the majority now seems to prefer.

The syntax (call/kw proc 1 2 :foo 3 :bar 4) relies on :foo and :bar
being somehow distinctive symbols.

This doesn't work: (call/kw proc 1 2 foo 3 bar 4). We can't make the
syntax so strict that it interprets *any* symbol whatsoever like a
keyword. That would confuse people for sure. Then we'd have to go back
to the original (call/kw proc 1 2 (foo 3 bar 4)) syntax.

Here too we could do something like (call/kw proc 1 2 (keyword foo) 3
(keyword bar) 4) but probably no programmer would want to use an
interface so verbose?