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.
> > I would like to understand this remark better. For example, the Java > > constructor paradigm seems more similar to my suggestion than the draft. > > I would think the opposite is true: > > (define-type foo (a b) > (fields > (a (foo-a) a) > (b (foo-b) b))) > > class Foo { > int a; > int b; > > > Foo(int a, int b) { > this.a = a; > this.b = b; > } > } Again, the comparison breaks down with examples like: class Foo { int a; int b; public int foo-a () { return a } public int foo-b () { return b } Foo(int a, int b) { int common = gcd (a, b); if (b == 0) { this.a = 1; this.b = 0 } else { this.a = a / common; this.b = b / common} } } which cannot currently be accomodated with the draft suggestion. Also, the Java declarations of foo-a and foo-b are not interlaced with the initializations. Cheers Andre ------------- End Forwarded Message -------------