Hole

["Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>]

    The only problem that could be solved by filling in this hole is to
    give people a way to supply fewer than all of the optional positionals
    while supplying some of the named arguments. My suggestion doesn't help
    with that much.

    As I've mentioned before - but as I know I must mention again - the effect
    of this might have some relevance to CLOS in which it might be useful (the
    CLOS folks have not yet decided) to discriminate on the names of named 
    arguments.

Maybe this suggests that it is time to bite the bullet and let CLOS
methods discriminate on non-required args, keyword or otherwise.  The
last time I heard this discussed, it was more a matter of "we don't want
to think about how to extend the priority rules right now" than "we
can't discriminate on optional args for the following fundamental
reason".  Has that changed?

-- Scott