Marc Feeley scripsit:

> 1) find an alternative mechanism that avoids the need for keyword
> objects (i.e. you view foo: as a symbol and want to keep it that way)

Yes, though I am obviously okay with allowing such symbols to be
self-evaluating.

> 2) find an alternative mechanism that avoids the proposed parameter
> list syntax (with #!key, etc)

No, although I don't consider this essential, since my approaches
all involve a standardized run-time representation.

> 3) find an alternative implementation of the SRFI (i.e. you are OK
> with the specification)

No.

--
John Cowan                              <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
            http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                .e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
                Please support Lojban!          http://www.lojban.org