Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: mkatz@garlic.stanford.EDU (Morris Katz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: How to redefine a procedure (extend it) and have nobody notice
Message-ID: <9104151636.AA16282@garlic.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 15 Apr 91 16:36:08 GMT
References: <1347@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21


   Date: 12 Apr 91 15:25:22 GMT
   From: Bruce Krulwich <krulwich@ils.nwu.edu>
   Organization: Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60201

   In article <9104041549.AA16630@schizo>, gjc@mitech writes:
   >What did prove useful to extending the calling conventions of
   >a procedure was &KEY arguments.
   ...
   >Did anyone ever propose the use of &KEY return values?
   ...
   >p.s. I really think I *have* heard of somebody suggestion &KEY
   >in multiple return values. I just cannot remember who or when.

This was discussed briefly at the Scheme meeting in Snowbird.  It was mentioned
in the context of a larger discussion of multiple values and not as a proposal
since Scheme does not have keyword arguments.
--------------------
Morry Katz
katz@cs.stanford.edu
--------------------