Language extension / "behavior"

[Didier Verna]

Martin Simmons wrote:

> I think it does, because section 3.5.1.4 Unrecognized Keyword
> Arguments says that an error must be signaled for unrecognized
> keywords in a safe call, so that will not happen for an extension
> keyword.

  I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean that safety declarations
don't apply to extensions ?

On the other hand, this section says: "It is not permitted to supply a
keyword argument to a function using a name that is not recognized by
that function [...]", but my reading of it is that if an extension
provides an additional keyword argument, then the function actually
"recognizes" it, so it seems to me that this section should not apply at
all.

-- 
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.

Lisp, Jazz, Aïkido: http://www.didierverna.info