[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
key argument versus keyword argument
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: key argument versus keyword argument
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 87 14:19 EDT
- In-reply-to: <870928-102654-18839@Xerox>
Date: 28 Sep 87 10:26 PDT
From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>
>Do you think it would be worth trying a version of the writeup
>that uses CLtL's terminology, with a simple admonition that a
>"keyword name" is not necessarily a keyword symbol?
Yes, this would be a good idea. I think a case can be made for
a semantic distinction between keyword symbols and keyword
arguments. The term keyword argument is used in Smalltalk as well,
where the concept of keyword symbols does not occur.
I agree with the principal -- but what about calling these "key
arguments" or "&key arguments" and a "key name" is a name that
identifies a key argument.
That seems like a raesonable idea. At this point, as far as I am
concerned I would rather follow CLtL's terminology, imperfect as it
is, than spend time trying to invent new terminology. My efforts
on the latter haven't been successful so far, and I'd rather work
on finishing CLOS. However, if Common Lisp comes up with better
terminology, we can certainly adjust the description of CLOS to match.