Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax

[Peter Bex <Peter.Bex@x>]

On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 10:20:41PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Peter Bex scripsit:
> 
> > This looks interesting, but will require some more experimentation
> > before being generally acceptable, I think.  I'm wary of things like
> > this, as it seems a lot like the unholy idea that all DSSSL-style
> > keywords must be bound.
> 
> Apropos that, you might want to look at KeywordArgumentsArcfide, which
> requires keywords (not DSSSL keywords, but colon-ized keywords) to be
> bound.  The nice feature is that it's pure R5RS + records.

That's what I had in mind when I wrote the word "unholy".

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports