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: > I agree that it scales poorly, but the same objection arguably applies to > /constructors/ (and parents) with positional arguments, yet these are built > into the basic syntax. Well, but it's much less serious here, as there are typically many occurrences of an accessor for a single occurrence of a constructor. Moreover, in the present design, the constructor must always receive a full slate of arguments. Furthermore, keywords for constructors can easily be built on top of what's there, as can keywords (or whatever) for pattern matching. (But who am I talking to? :-) ) -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla