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

Pains from duplicate field names [Miscellaneous loose ends]

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:

>> Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> - Why do the field /name/s in the procedural layer /not/ need to be
>>>   distinct?
>>>   I could see this feature causing lots of pain.
>> What kinda pain?
> [... lots ...]

So I believe the positive rationale is that the field names might get
generated by a macro based on the number of fields, where it's
difficult to impossible (SYNTAX-RULES) or awkward (SYNTAX-CASE) to
generate unique names.  You got any answers for that?

> - Instead, the current design makes positional indexing an irreducible
>   part of what it means to be a record [...]

That bothers me, too (personally, that is), and it suggests (to me,
personally) that there should actually be a layer underneath the
records which deals with subtyping and positional indexing only, and
leaves everything dealing with named fields for the procedural layer.
I want to play around with this more, but it may be a while.

In any case, all this surely warrants writing it up as an issue for
now, which I'll do.

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