Re: Superfluous actual arguments Joo ChurlSoo 15 Apr 2006 15:00 UTC

 * From: Marc Feeley <>
 | On 14-Apr-06, at 8:47 PM, soo wrote:
   >> | Unfortunately, if you add a rest parameter to foo (and bar)
   >> | the error checking is lost.  Good error checking is
   >> | important in the case of named parameters because you want
   >> | to catch any misspelling of the parameters.
   >> Can the exception for superfluous arguments be allowed because
   >> of that?  If default value is taken because of misspelling of
   >> the parameter, it is programmer's responsibility.  I don't
   >> understand why superfluous arguments are allowed in spite of
   >> absence of rest parameter.
 | I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
 | I'm guessing that you would like a duplicate parameter to be an  error.  I
 | expect erroneously duplicated parameters to be much less  frequent than
 | misspelled parameters, and that it is easier to find  that there is an
 | erroneously duplicated parameter.  On the other hand  there is a use case for
 | duplicate parameters, as I explained in my  previous message.  Moreover this
 | is how Common Lisp and DSSSL handle  duplicate parameters (i.e. it is not
 | considered an error).  I'm not  trying to innovate here.  Since one of the
 | goals of this SRFI is to  be compatible with DSSSL when possible, the only
 | deviation would have  to be motivated by a significant issue.  I don't find
 | that's the case  here.

I overlooked the sentence, "It is an error if the parameter name is not the
same as a variable in a <keyword formal>.".

Thank you for kind reply.

Joo ChurlSoo