Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (31 Jul 2021 17:45 UTC)
Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (07 Jun 2021 15:45 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (07 Jun 2021 16:07 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (09 Jun 2021 08:49 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 09:13 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (09 Jun 2021 09:42 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley (09 Jun 2021 10:24 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 10:32 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley (09 Jun 2021 12:16 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 12:40 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley (09 Jun 2021 13:10 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 15:56 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Feeley (09 Jun 2021 18:15 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 10:27 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (14 Oct 2021 10:42 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (09 Jun 2021 17:22 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 17:37 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Peter Bex (08 Jun 2021 05:17 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Per Bothner (08 Jun 2021 05:38 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (09 Jun 2021 09:00 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Per Bothner (10 Jun 2021 17:23 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (21 Jun 2021 07:23 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (09 Jun 2021 08:55 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (09 Jun 2021 14:29 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 14:44 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (09 Jun 2021 17:03 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 17:33 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (09 Jun 2021 17:37 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 17:40 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (09 Jun 2021 19:01 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (09 Jun 2021 19:25 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (10 Jun 2021 10:17 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (10 Jun 2021 11:18 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (12 Jun 2021 22:08 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (21 Jun 2021 07:21 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (21 Jun 2021 10:37 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (29 Jul 2021 09:42 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (29 Jul 2021 23:34 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (30 Jul 2021 07:03 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Jul 2021 07:31 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (30 Jul 2021 21:39 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Jul 2021 21:47 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (30 Jul 2021 21:49 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (30 Jul 2021 21:59 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (30 Jul 2021 21:32 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (31 Jul 2021 10:02 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2021 10:29 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (31 Jul 2021 17:33 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (31 Jul 2021 18:04 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters John Cowan (31 Jul 2021 19:52 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal (02 Dec 2021 17:57 UTC)
Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Jeronimo Pellegrini (03 Dec 2021 03:32 UTC)

Re: Reviewing named and optional parameters Daphne Preston-Kendal 31 Jul 2021 17:45 UTC

On 31 Jul 2021, at 19:33, John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 6:02 AM Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org> wrote:
>
>> Then we can safely define either
>>
>> keyword → ⟨identifier⟩ :
>> (DSSSL style)
>> *or*
>> keyword → : ⟨identifier⟩
>> (Common Lisp style)
>>
>> in Large, no? Assuming we choose to have some kind of lexical keyword type (which I think would be a good idea, notwithstanding programs that use them probably automatically lose small portability).
>
> Yes, given that we are able to swallow that incompatibility.  The WG2 charter says "Every program that conforms to the specifications produced by working group 1 (and relies on no features beyond those guaranteed by those specifications) must also be a program that conforms to the specifications produced by working group 2."  This implies to me that we must maintain backward compatibility; it is not enough that ':foo is a program in both R7RS-small and R7RS-large; it must mean the same thing in both languages.

Well, under a strict interpretation of that, we can’t define either — at least not without requiring explicit quoting of keywords. Prefix #: would be fine, though (but Gerbil, at least, will need heroic efforts to support it, since it piggy-backs on Gambit’s reader, which thinks #: means an uninterned symbol).

>> Okay, so there’s some internal magic going on here to detect which keywords were actually passed and supply the defaults, despite there being no defaults in the method signature? Or does CL have another way to do that detection?
>
> What I gave you was the abbreviated form given in the spec, and the default values are in the prose.

Ah, right. lambda-keyword (whatever form it takes) should be able to do all this on all Schemes targeted by a bridged implementation already.

Daphne