Edit history: 2004-07-20, Version 1 by Bruno Haible
Status: For CLiki consideration
- Problem Description:
- (:(clhs values) :(clhs &allow-other-keys)) matches the syntax for the VALUES type specifier, but the description doesn't say what it means. Because the syntax does not allow :(clhs &key), &allow-other-keys was probably a mistake.
- Proposal (VALUES-&ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS:DISALLOW):
- Don't mention &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS as being allowed in the VALUES type specifier.
- Test case:
- Current practice:
- CLISP supports &KEY and &ALLOW-OTHER-KEYS.
- Cost to Implementors:
- Cost to Users:
- Cost of Non-Adoption:
- Unclear spec.
- Bruno Haible supports proposal DISALLOW.