Am So., 16. Aug. 2020 um 19:12 Uhr schrieb <xxxxxx@ancell-ent.com>:

> It's "OK", but ... well, all things considered, including assq (we
> *are* requiring all keys be symbols, right?  I think we made that
> decision, but I want to double check.) alists are OK for the
> procedure(s) that dump multiple key/value pairs.

I don't understand the "but" in your sentence.

> To answer your previous question, when you look at raw alists that
> have lists as values, they aren't '(key . (value1 value 2)), the
> dotted pair just becomes a list, '(key (value1 value 2)).  This is

Huh? That would indeed be confusing and totally unsane.

> Any strong arguments for making the argument(s) an implicit plist,
> e.g. (make-foreign-status 'key1 'value1 'key2 'value2), vs. an
> explicit one, e.g. (make-foreign-status '(key1 value1 key2 value2))?

I would follow the example of SRFI 125.