Marc Feeley <xxxxxx@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Perhaps the SRFI spec is unclear.  Can you help me understand why you
> interpreted the spec incorrectly so that I can improve the spec?

No, the SRFI spec is not unclear, I am just unable to read it. I
misread the phrase „in the order they occur in the formal
parameter list“ somehow, and thought the optional arguments are
treated first. Thanks for pointing out that I was mistaken there.

I don't think I made it clear enough in my first post, so let me
be explicit again: This SRFI is a vast improvement over all the
named argument specification I have seen so far. Thanks a lot.

Regards,
        -- Jorgen

--
((email . "xxxxxx@forcix.cx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/")
 (gpg   . "1024D/028AF63C")   (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))