Per Bothner scripsit: > There is SRFI 16's case-lambda, but it's pretty simple.
Case-lambda is on the table for WG1, and I expect it will most likely pass. > That means that if R7RS supports optional arguments then the following > (or something functionally equivalent) should be a valid <pattern>: > > (a b #!optional c (d 10)) Both optional arguments and keyword arguments will be WG2 modules, but I don't expect that DSSSL keywords will be the syntax, as that was the bottom-ranked choice in the WG1 vote. > Also, a question to ponder: For implementations that provide some > kind of abstract "sequence" type that is (at least) a superset of > both list and vector: They might want to allow a list pattern to > match either a sequence or vector. Not perhaps directly relevant > to R7RS standardization, unless we're considering abstract sequences > types for R7RS, but note that is a direction some of us might like to > move towards. Generic sequences were voted down by WG2. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org At times of peril or dubitation, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Perform swift circular ambulation, With loud and high-pitched ululation. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
