[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Pains from duplicate field names [Miscellaneous loose ends]
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
>>> 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