Marc Feeley wrote:
> The record SRFI should not be withdrawn yet because there is a possible
> interaction with SRFI 88 and SRFI 89 that have just appeared (i.e.
> Keyword objects and Optional parameters).  I think there are good
> reasons to consider the use of named optional parameters and keywords in
> the record SRFI.

For example Kawa allows:

(define-class Complex ()
   (re) (im))

(define z (Complex im: 3 re: 4))
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/