Re: [rms@gnu.org: Re: 20.3.1 nit: set-face-* commands]
Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> writes:
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> writes:
[This Lisp FAQ talking about Common Lisp is it.)
Of course it is. But when implementing Common Lisp features, we
really should be sticking to the Common Lisp specifications. Anything
else would *really* suck.
> When a function takes both types of arguments, all the
> optional arguments must be specified explicitly before any of
> the keyword arguments may be specified.
Can be not just ditch this requirement (which I consider extremely
silly).
I don't find it all that silly. Emacs Lisp is even worse than Common
Lisp in this respect -- CL keywords at least have special properties,
their own obarray and everything. Elisp keywords are just symbols
beginning with `:'. So why shouldn't an optional argument receive a
symbol beginning with `:'?
> So, adding keyword arguments to a function that already accepts
a
> bunch of optional arguments (for historical reasons) would only
> introduce *more* problems and confusion.
What if you can also specify the "optional" arguments through
keywords then you can just use all keywords or just positional
arguments.
That runs into the same problems as described above.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
- When I die, shall I not be like Enkidu?
- Like, no, man, you'll be, like, totally dead.