On 11-Apr-06, at 5:38 PM, Taylor R. Campbell wrote:

> I'd like to see some compelling examples that demand named parameters
> and for which alists of options would not suffice, perhaps for
> performance reasons or otherwise.  In my experience I can't recall
> ever having found any good ones, really; do you have any particularly
> compelling examples where you found named parameters with this
> mechanism much more appropriate than any other mechanism, or than
> separate procedures to do different jobs?

I hate to say this but...  SRFI-88 and SRFI-89 were submitted along
with 2 other SRFIs which are good cases for the use of named optional
parameters:

   - Extensible hash table constructor
   - Extended ports

Could you please wait for these SRFIs to appear and repeat the
question if you still find that the examples given are not compelling.

Marc