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?
