> From: "Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen" <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de>
> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2020 12:19 PM
>
> 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.

That when followed by ellipsis is just trying to express thinking
out loud, the "but" signaling I don't entirely like it at the
beginning of the process.

> [ Incorrect example, see following message. ]
>
>> 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.

Agreed (explicit alists, the last example above), but we need to
reach a consensus on this.

- Harold