[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Keyword args
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: Keyword args |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:03:59 +0900 |
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> Anyway, I would like to discourage complicated implementations in
> "user-space" for keyword arguments. They should be a core language
> feature, for all the reasons I gave in my first article.
well... I agree, mostly (though that doesn't mean I agree that many
primitives in elisp should _use_ keywords, e.g. to the extent that CL
does).
Another perhaps-useful concept is alternate function entry points for an
"already handled" argument form (my vague memory is that CMUCL does
this). In many cases the compiler could then do argument parsing at
compile time and generate a call to the "simple" entry point.
-Miles
--
Consult, v.i. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on.
- Re: Return, (continued)
- Re: Return, MON KEY, 2010/12/06
- Re: Return, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/12/07
- Re: Return, David Kastrup, 2010/12/07
- Re: Return, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/12/07
- Re: Return, Richard Stallman, 2010/12/08
- Re: Return, Daniel Colascione, 2010/12/10
- Keyword args (was: Return), Helmut Eller, 2010/12/10
- Re: Keyword args, Daniel Colascione, 2010/12/12
- Re: Keyword args, Helmut Eller, 2010/12/13
- Re: Keyword args, Andy Wingo, 2010/12/13
- Re: Keyword args,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: Keyword args, Helmut Eller, 2010/12/14
- Re: Return, MON KEY, 2010/12/07
- Re: Return, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/12/08
- Re: Return, MON KEY, 2010/12/08
- Re: Return, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/12/09
- Re: Return, Samuel Bronson, 2010/12/07
- Re: Return, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/12/08
- Re: Return, Samuel Bronson, 2010/12/08