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

Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal



On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Andre van Tonder wrote:

In the following examples, both the formals and the parent arguments can easily be factored out to reproduce the surface syntax of the SRFI, with a certain loss of expressiveness.

Let me also point out some more problems (sorry ;-):

Factoring out the formals causing loss of expressivity:
-------------------------------------------------------

- We cannot use CASE-LAMBDA for variable arity constructors.
- We cannot express (speudocode):

    (define-type generated-id
      (fields symbol)
      (constructor (let ((count 0))
                     (lambda ()
                       (set! count (+ count 1))
                       (string->symbol ................)))))

Factoring out parent arguments causing loss of expressivity:
------------------------------------------------------------

- We cannot call the parent with different arguments depending
  on the child arguments, e.g.

   (define-type eq-hash-table
     (parent hash-table)
     (constructor (lambda (size hasher)
                    (if (< size 7)
                        (instantiate (eq? (lambda (key) 0) 1))
                                              ; parent arguments
                        (instantiate (eq? hasher size))))))

In the following examples, INSTANTIATE is a local lexical macro valid in the constructor clause that does two orthogonal things:

By the way, since INSTANTIATE would be a lexical macro, this makes it impossible to write a global procedure that could be reused for more than one record type. A positional interface would be superior in this regard.

Cheers
Andre