[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pains from duplicate field names [Miscellaneous loose ends]
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
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
I believe something stronger than syntax-rules has to be available anyway just
to implement this SRFI, but that's probably beside the point :-)