[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.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:

Yes, but you misunderstand the sentence in the draft: It's not saying

"If ..., it would still be possible to <something>.  However, we want
to make <something> impossible."

If I misunderstood it, it was not in this way :-)

Instead, the sentence is trying to say: "If the construction procedure
was defined outside the DEFINE-TYPE, it wouldn't be available through
the type defined by DEFINE-TYPE, and we couldn't use it, say, through
the PARENT clause."

Would this be a better wording?

It would be better, although strictly speaking I'm not sure you should say that it is available through the type, since that can be misunderstood as implying that it is in the type descriptor, which it is not.

The only reason for the rationale is the formals in the parent clause. My statements were in the context of a suggestion to drop the idea of initialization via constructor formals, maybe instead just using labels as in SRFI-9. That would have taken away the reason for the rationale.