This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 57 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 57 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
From the SRFI document: A list of field labels is associated with the record type <type name>, obtained by appending from left to right the lists of field labels of any record type schemes (see below) appearing in the <type clause>, followed by the list of labels in the <constructor clause>, followed by the labels in order of appearance in the <field clause>s. Duplicates are removed from the resulting list according to the semantics of delete-duplicates of SRFI-1.It's not clear from this paragraph that it is an error to have duplicates within the constructor clause or among the field clauses. That is, the following should be an error (and indeed it is according to the reference implementation), but is arguably a legal record type definition according to the prose above:
(define-record-type box make-box box? (v) (v)) On a related note, I don't know what to make of this: (define-record-type box (make-box v v) box?)I would think this should be an error as well, but is not according to the reference implementation. Accepting this as a legal record definition leads to the following ambiguity:
(define-record-type box (make-box v v) box? (v unbox)) (unbox (make-box 1 2)) => 1 or 2?The reference implementation gives 1 (in PLT), but as far as I can tell this is unspecified according to the SRFI.