Mail Index

• Thread Index

• Just provide procedural interface
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• "types" or "records"?
  • From: Donovan Kolbly
• Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Ken Dickey
• Re: Just provide procedural interface
  • From: Per Bothner
• Problem with type inference
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Just provide procedural interface
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• records with additional indexed fields
  • From: Sebastian Egner
• Problems with field initialization
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: "types" or "records"?
  • From: Taylor Campbell
• Re: "types" or "records"?
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Problems with field initialization
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Problem with type inference
  • From: William D Clinger
• Re: Problem with type inference
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problem with type inference
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Problem with type inference
  • From: William D Clinger
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: field initialization: Backward compatible suggestion
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Richard Kelsey
• opaque record types
  • From: Richard Kelsey
• Incompatibility with pattern matching
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Constructor rationale questions
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: opaque record types
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Incompatibility with pattern matching
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Constructor rationale questions
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Incompatibility with pattern matching
  • From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
• Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Richard Kelsey
• Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: opaque record types
  • From: Richard Kelsey
• Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Richard Kelsey
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Incompatibility with pattern matching
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Constructor rationale questions
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: opaque record types
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Incompatibility with pattern matching
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Constructor rationale questions
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Constructor rationale questions
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Optional features [was Re: opaque record types]
  • From: Donovan Kolbly
• Re: Optional features
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Miscellaneous loose ends
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Miscellaneous loose ends
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Miscellaneous loose ends
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Miscellaneous loose ends
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Miscellaneous loose ends
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Efficiency of generic programming
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Pains from duplicate field names [Miscellaneous loose ends]
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Efficiency of generic programming
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Pains from duplicate field names [Miscellaneous loose ends]
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Pains from duplicate field names [Miscellaneous loose ends]
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Efficiency of generic programming
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Efficiency of generic programming
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• external representation
  • From: Matthias Radestock
• Re: external representation
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Efficiency of generic programming
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Efficiency of generic programming
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: external representation
  • From: bear
• Revision of SRFI 76 available
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Comments on LET and constructors
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Revision of SRFI 76 available - questions and comments
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Comments on LET and constructors
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Some BNF, multiple values
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Revision of SRFI 76 available - questions and comments
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Is a syntax such as (update my-record-type my-record (x 3) (y 4)) possible?
  • From: Andrew Wilcox
• Re: Is a syntax such as (update my-record-type my-record (x 3) (y 4)) possible?
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft
  • From: Donovan Kolbly
• Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft
  • From: Taylor Campbell
• Accessor visibility
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Accessor visibility
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Accessor visibility
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Distinct fields
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Dead link to Pavel Curtis's 1989 proposal
  • From: Per Bothner
• record-mutator vs record-modifier
  • From: Per Bothner
• Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft
  • From: Taylor Campbell
• Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft
  • From: Per Bothner
• Eq? issue
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: record-mutator vs record-modifier
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: record-mutator vs record-modifier
  • From: Taylor Campbell
• Re: Distinct fields
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Dead link to Pavel Curtis's 1989 proposal
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Eq? issue
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Dead link to Pavel Curtis's 1989 proposal
  • From: Per Bothner
• Re: Eq? issue
  • From: Andre van Tonder
• Re: Eq? issue
  • From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
• Re: Eq? issue
  • From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
• Opacity considered harmful [was Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft]
  • From: Tony Garnock-Jones
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: Andrew Wilcox
• Re: Opacity considered harmful [was Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft]
  • From: felix winkelmann
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: Taylor Campbell
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: Per Bothner
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Eq? issue
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: Tony Garnock-Jones
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: Taylor Campbell
• Re: Eq? issue
  • From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
• Need to avoid breaking abstractions? Then *DON'T*.
  • From: bear
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: bear
• Re: Opacity considered harmful
  • From: Sebastian Egner
• Withdrawal near
  • From: Michael Sperber
• Re: Withdrawal near
  • From: Marc Feeley
• Re: Withdrawal near
  • From: Per Bothner
• Re: Withdrawal near
  • From: Donovan Kolbly
• Re: Withdrawal near
  • From: Sebastian Egner
• Re: Withdrawal near
  • From: Michael Sperber