Thanks again for the thoughtful contrarian arguments Marc.

>> I was referring to the idea that the main advantage of keyword
>> arguments is that parameters can be added to API calls in a
>> backward-compatible way.
>
> I think the main advantage is readability.  You can just as well add
> ordinary unnamed arguments at the end of an ordinary lambda-list, but at a
> high cost in readability.

To me the best thing is that it's easy for users. You can add arguments
and move on to more other work without having these deliberations each time.

The most hardcore Haskellers might prefer to make a composable DSL out
of everything. I'd agree in many cases, but should we really make a new
DSL for every library with a `find`- or `open`-style procedure?

Looking at prior art from Common Lisp and Emacs, the no-effort solution
of keywords tends to be at least 80% as good as a tailor-made solution
would be (look at some procedures with keyword/optional args and imagine
replacing them with a record or DSL).