bear wrote:
> For what it's worth, I do not believe that optional arguments
> should ever be at the beginning in a scheme function call.
> That's one of the things that the language doesn't naturally
> do, and having it happen for one or a few functions creates
> glaring exceptions that have to be memorized.

As far as I can tell, "the language" doesn't naturally do optional
arguments very well at all.  R5RS has no facilities for it except taking
apart a list, and the difference between handling optional arguments at
the end rather than at the beginning is minor.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/