Good idea, Peter. I wonder if it will work with an extended specification for multiple optional arguments -- I will have to change
it to nested square brackets e.g. (bar arg1 [optarg2 [optarg3 [optarg4]]]) so there is no ambiguity.

-S

On 5/14/26 12:53, Sergei Egorov wrote:
> True, but there is no conventional way to specify alternating
key-value
> argument lists without confusion; (foo key value ...) may be read as a
> single key followed by multiple values. I am open to suggestions.

I usually use

      (foo [key value] ...)

For example, (foo), (foo key value), (foo key value key_2 value_2) are
allowed, but (foo key), (foo key value key_2) etc. are not. SRFI-125
follows this convention. (Some others don't.)

Racket does (foo key value ... ...) to mean the same thing but I find
that unintuitive and confusing.

-- Peter McGoron