> Comments and corrections? That was an excellent summary of the issues. Thank you for your patience in dealing with the rest of us who struggle to grasp the full extent of the issues. If _requiring_ new syntax is off-limits, _and_ keyword arguments are added in, then R7RS-large needs a macro-based approach like SRFI 177. Those constraints simplify our job. A good argument for standard keyword arguments is that, empirically, Scheme programmers keep hacking around the problem quite a bit. Rest-list parsing is not uncommon, and that code is significantly less elegant and optimized than it would be just to use something like lambda/kw, even in its current form in SRFI 177 draft 2. My argument is that it's hard to do worse than the current situation in the wild, and from that point of view standardization is not that risky. I guess it is possible to paint yourself into a corner in the standard by specifying a really fancy keyword system where some design decisions later turn out to be mistakes. As far as I can tell, worries of that kind can be avoided by specifying a less ambitious keyword system that leaves more options open. The bare basics (current SRFI 177 semantics) adequately cover probably >95% of real use cases. Since there is an interesting debate going on about hygiene, the current syntax-rules-compatible (call/kw 1 2 (c 3 d 4)) syntax would give flexibility there. Something like (call 1 2 &key c 3 d 4) has also been suggested.
