[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
- Subject: :allow-other-keys query
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 86 02:06 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: <FAHLMAN.12229586322.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1986 00:04 EDT
From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
(defun bah (&key humbug)
which of the following are legal?
1 (bah :allow-other-keys nil :other 'blah)
2 (bah :allow-other-keys t :other 'blah)
3 (bah :allow-other-keys nil)
Certainly 1 is in error and 2 is legal. What about 3? The way I read
the manual this is an error, which I don't think is the intent of this
I agree with your analysis: a strict reading of the current wording of
the manual would suggest that case 3 is an error, but it would make more
sense if this were not treated as an error.
Our implementation treated 3 as an error for a while, due to being misled
by the manual, and we decided that that was a bug. I agree with Earl;
all &key functions accept :allow-other-keys, and the manual (pp.62-3)
should be clarified accordingly.