Re: case-lambda* question

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> So, the story here is fairly simple, but the result is complicated.

Woow, thanks for the clear and thorough explanation!

[...]

> Again, considering the first clause:
>
>     ((lambda* (a #:key x) 3) 1 2 3)
>
> Does it apply?  It shouldn't: there are three positional arguments,
> whereas only one is expected.  However, Guile currently thinks that it
> does, in the case-lambda* context, because it only checks that there is
> at least one positional argument.  This is probably a bug.
>
> The attached patch fixes the problem.  If there are no comments against
> it, I will apply it to stable-2.0.  It does introduce a slight
> incompatibility, but I don't think there are many case-lambda* users,
> and it makes cases work that previously failed to work.

Yes, makes sense to me.

Ludo’.