The publication process for this SRFI and the adjacent ones was very long, so they reflect ideas from much earlier in SRFI history.  Arthur will have the exact dates, of course.

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 9:52 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <> wrote:

Am Sa., 7. März 2020 um 15:46 Uhr schrieb Lassi Kortela <>:
> The answer here is SRFI 159/166. :)

Since this SRFI came after 159 and 166 had been out for a while, we
should assume Joo has a good reason to eschew the DSL approach for some
applications (a comparison in SRFI 183's rationale would be useful).

If I have understood it correctly, this SRFI is in the tradition of SRFI 54, which was before SRFI 159/166.

> So this is also a wonderful case study for general keyword arguments vs
> some tailored DSL.

That's true.

I tend to favor DSLs if there is plenty of time to explore the problem
from all angles, or if the problem is complex enough that the solution
requires multiple procedures anyway. On the other hand, keyword
arguments may be less likely to make a mess if there is not enough time
for thorough design and experimentation.

In fox's case, it's only a single procedure, so keywords would probably
be a win unless more comprehensive formatting is desired (for which SRFI
159/166 are good solutions).