[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
function-keywords meets &rest
- To: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: function-keywords meets &rest
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 13:31 EST
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@Sail.Stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <19900108001758.1.GREGOR@SPIFF.parc.xerox.com>
- Line-fold: No
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 90 16:17 PST
We may have already resolved this, but what happens when
fucntion-keywords gets a method where the arglist has &rest. Is the
second returned value T??
(A second returned value of T is documented as meaning the lambda-list
I couldn't find any evidence of this issue having been raised before.
The lambda-list congruency rules (Aug 29 1989 4:06 draft, p.4-19) don't
treat &rest and &allow-other-keys the same. In rule 3 &rest without
&key is the same as &allow-other-keys, but in rule 4 they are different.
An implementation is not a specification, but in the Symbolics implementation
of FUNCTION-KEYWORDS currently the second value is true if and only if
(member '&allow-other-keys lambda-list) is true (provided that the
lambda-list is syntactically valid).
Unless there is a reason to change it, I would stick with the 88-002R
language, which implies that the values are NIL NIL if the lambda-list
does not contain &KEY, and that the values are not affected by the
presence of &REST.