This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 76 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 76 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Instead of having a separate <init expression> for each field, one could > simply have an <expression> for the constructor, which should evaluate to a > procedure that returns the computed fields (using VALUES, for example). This might be a suitable alternative if it could fit into the syntactic layer in such a way as to provide a simple way of defaulting, at least for the case where I just want the constructor arguments to go into the corresponding fields. Do you have suggestions on how that might look? -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla