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

Re: Constructor rationale questions

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> * This does not seem compelling, since I have to wrap the constructor anyway 
>   in many quite elementary cases due to the limitations on custom field
>   initialization:

But you and I are currently having a discussion meant to fix this, no?

>>From document:
> ==============
> "... this creates the need for an extra procedure name which is not part of 
> the record type's definition.  This means that extensions which deal with the
> record type's definition (such extensions to support keyword arguments, etc.) 
> don't have access to the record type's actual constructor."
> * This does not seem correct.  As a counterexample, SRFI-57 is exactly
>   such an extension of SRFI-9.  It hides the underlying SRFI-9 
>   constructor as follows (schematically):  [...]

I don't understand how your response fits the document.  You talk
about hiding identifiers, the rationale in the draft is about
something else.

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