[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

:allow-other-keys query

    Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1986  00:04 EDT
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

        From: earl
	    (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
	feature.  Opinions?

    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.