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

Re: "types" or "records"?

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.

   Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:17:05 -0500 (CDT)
   From: Donovan Kolbly <donovan@xxxxxxxxxxx>

   Some of the terminology in this SRFI seems inconsistent.  The procedural 
   layer talks about constructing "record type descriptors" (i.e., 
   make-record-type-descriptor), but the syntactic layers talk about defining 
   types (i.e., define-type and type-descriptor).

   The very title of the SRFI suggests that it's about records.  Shouldn't 
   the syntactic layer be consistent with that?

I too dislike the term 'type' as used here and would rather that it be
restricted in standards documents only as a term for an abstract
concept in the language, not anything specific as it is used in this
SRFI.  I believe DEFINE-TYPE is an artifact from Gambit, and I'd
rather see the old name DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE or some variation thereof.
Indeed, unless there is a good reason otherwise, I think it would be
better to support the old DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE syntax as the base,
extended for inheritance and automatic field initializers, and then to
build anything more sophisticated later, possibly on top of that.