[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Miscellaneous loose ends
Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Additional questions:
> - What is the scope of the bindings of the accessors? Can I write
> (define-type point (previous)
> (fields (x (point-x)) (point-x previous))
> (y (point-y)) (point-y previous))))
Yes; I'll try to clarify.
> - Same question for the constructor and predicate.
> - What is the scope of the binding of the type itself? Can I write
> (define-type foo ()
> (fields (x mutable) (......(type-descriptor foo).......)))
No, because it may be a syntactic binding. (This might need to be
worked out at some point.)
> - Can I use (parent <parent name> ...) in the syntactic layer to extend
> a record type that has been defined procedurally?
No; this is the second-to-last issue.
> - Related to previous: Do <record name>s belong to a separate namespace
> from ordinary identifiers?
No. This is Scheme, after all.
> - Does TYPE-DESCRIPTOR need to be syntax, or can it be a procedure?
Needs to be syntax.
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla