Subject: bug#1321: process-lines

From: Daniel Colascione <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 16:45:29 -0700

On 03/14/2015 03:36 PM, Peder O. Klingenberg wrote:
> Just adding an optional argument to process-lines is difficult
> without
breaking the API, due to its use of &rest. I suggest something along the
lines of the following patch:

What about defining a `process-lines-2' that takes keyword arguments and
accepts a list for PROGRAM?