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

Re: "types" or "records"?

Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> [...] 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.

This isn't meant to be a direct response to your comment, but let me
state two constraints that proposals to change the syntax probably
need to satisfy if they are to fly with the R6RS committee.  (That
doesn't mean these are the only ones; it also doesn't mean those are
constraints formulated by me, or that they aren't.)

- The syntax needs to be worked out completely.  Some concrete
  examples might be enough; EBNF would be welcome.

- Any explicit-naming syntax needs to allow a "smooth upgrade" to an
  implicit-naming syntax and vice versa.

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla