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

Re: Lexical syntax for boxes

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 111 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 111 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> > However, R7RS abandoned this for records, presumably for a good
> > reason.
> R7RS-small left this unspecified, leaving room for WG2 to fill in the
> gap.

If we want to.  But I argue that we don't: rather than extending
`equal?` in idiosyncratic ways that may or may not be what people
actually want, we should provide a way for them to get what they want.

> I think the best thing all around is to treat boxes as what they are -
> simple single-valued records - and let the record specification apply
> to them.  Anything else is confusing.


Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim  John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust?   cowan@xxxxxxxx
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.
        --George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar