On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Michael Sperber wrote:
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?
I don't quite understand. In this case, could you not generate the names at runtime when executing make-record-type? Since with the current SRFI, your hypothetical syntax-rules macro presumably will use the same name for all the fields, the symbolic names cannot matter and you'll have to do positional indexing anyway.
I believe something stronger than syntax-rules has to be available anyway just to implement this SRFI, but that's probably beside the point :-)
Cheers Andre