Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: Wrapping up SRFI 177: Portable keyword arguments John Cowan (02 Mar 2020 23:53 UTC)
Re: Wrapping up SRFI 177: Portable keyword arguments Marc Feeley (03 Mar 2020 04:46 UTC)
Re: Wrapping up SRFI 177: Portable keyword arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 06:29 UTC)
Re: Wrapping up SRFI 177: Portable keyword arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 06:43 UTC)
Re: Wrapping up SRFI 177: Portable keyword arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 07:51 UTC)
Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Lassi Kortela (03 Mar 2020 08:57 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Shiro Kawai (03 Mar 2020 09:00 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 09:06 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Shiro Kawai (03 Mar 2020 09:19 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 09:48 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Shiro Kawai (03 Mar 2020 10:03 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 10:12 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw John Cowan (06 Oct 2020 20:20 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (07 Oct 2020 07:29 UTC)
Syntax for identifier syntax Lassi Kortela (03 Mar 2020 09:55 UTC)
Re: Syntax for identifier syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 10:16 UTC)
Re: Syntax for identifier syntax John Cowan (03 Mar 2020 13:37 UTC)
Re: Syntax for identifier syntax Lassi Kortela (03 Mar 2020 13:42 UTC)
Re: Syntax for identifier syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 14:59 UTC)
Re: Syntax for identifier syntax Jim Rees (04 Mar 2020 18:12 UTC)
Re: Syntax for identifier syntax Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 Mar 2020 18:18 UTC)
Re: Syntax for identifier syntax John Cowan (04 Mar 2020 23:48 UTC)
Re: Identifier syntax, and using macros with call/kw Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 09:13 UTC)
R7RS-large backward compatibility Lassi Kortela (03 Mar 2020 10:31 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 11:31 UTC)
Specifying a meeting point for different keyword systems Lassi Kortela (03 Mar 2020 11:56 UTC)
Re: Specifying a meeting point for different keyword systems Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 Mar 2020 15:03 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 19:36 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Lassi Kortela (05 Mar 2020 19:51 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility John Cowan (05 Mar 2020 20:03 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Lassi Kortela (05 Mar 2020 20:17 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (08 Mar 2020 09:00 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Lassi Kortela (08 Mar 2020 09:06 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility John Cowan (08 Mar 2020 21:58 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Lassi Kortela (08 Mar 2020 22:40 UTC)
Re: [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Mar 2020 07:42 UTC)
Re: [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Mar 2020 11:46 UTC)
Re: [scheme-reports-wg2] R7RS-large backward compatibility Lassi Kortela (09 Mar 2020 12:07 UTC)
Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Per Bothner (09 Mar 2020 16:30 UTC)
Re: [scheme-reports-wg2] Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Mar 2020 16:48 UTC)

Re: R7RS-large backward compatibility Lassi Kortela 05 Mar 2020 19:51 UTC

>     To me, now the question comes up how to write specifications for
>     SRFIs that want to make use of keyword arguments.

This is the top question on my mind as well :)

>     There implementation may depend on a specific system like SRFI 177, but
>     the interface should be opaque.

Enthusiastically agreed.

> I don't think that's possible.

Please elaborate on the reason. Would we run into problems if we tried
to specify a super-minimal contract about what guarantees present and
future keyword systems provide to help SRFI writers?

> A future SRFI that needs to use keywords
> could depend on SRFI 177 , and write:
>
> (call/kw example string1 string2 string3 &key :foo number :bar symbol
> :baz list) -> vector
>
> (This may vary depending on the final form of SRFI 177.)

> Alternatively it can depend on SRFIs 88 and 89, and write:
>
> (example string1 string2 string3 foo: number bar: symbol baz: list) ->
> vector
>
> Or it could say that either can be used depending on which SRFIs are
> available.  But if you want an abstraction over both of them, then I
> think that SRFI 177 (up to renaming) *is* that abstraction.

This is all very interesting. I don't yet understand all the
implications. I'll wait for more comments from you and others which will
hopefully alleviate my confusion and inexperience a bit.