Re: pass at srfi-89 implementation

[Julian Graham]

Well, there's a reference implementation of SRFI-89 that (I think)
could just be dropped in and used, now that we have SRFI-88-style
keywords.  I was just hoping that the existence of `(ice-9 optargs)'
would make possible a more compact / potentially more efficient
implementation.


> Would it be a lot more time to make SRFI-89 independent of `(ice-9
> optargs)' given the differences you describe?
>
> IMO it would look cleaner and be more robust in the face of changes in
> `(ice-9 optargs)'.  It would also make sure the SRFI-89 implementation
> is not subtly biased towards what's in `(ice-9 optargs)'.
>
> What do you think?