Hole

Actually, I think I wrote things up so that if no one uses &required-key,
everything behaves as before. Possibly there is some definition of
``compatible'' with which I am not familiar such that this behavior is
``very incompatible?''

I suppose if someone wants to not have to remember twenty keywords, they
don't have to use &required-keys.

I ran through the exercise of inventing a new type of object for
names of arguments, but then when I considered the frequency of
this sort of checking and the ways I know type space is divided in
current implementations, it didn't seem worth it.

Of course, if CLOS needs required named arguments for discrimination
(not error signaling) it can be a feature of CLOS lambda-lists
not available in Common Lisp. The syntax of CLOS lambda-lists is an extension
already.

			-rpg+