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

Re: Revised SRFI-76 (R6RS Records) draft



Michael Sperber wrote:
As we found out in the discussion leading to the draft, for records,
many facets of simplicity are in the eye of the beholder.  We spent a
lof of time trying to make things as simple as we could by meeting the
requirements spelled out in the rationale.  The current draft is, in
many way, already significantly simpler than the previous one, and
much closer to the spirit of SRFI 9 when it comes to the constructor
mechanism.

As far as I can tell, the two forms of define-record-type don't actually
clash: I.e. a valid SRFI-9 define-record-type cannot be a valid
SRFI-76 define-record-type or vice versa.

For SRFI-9 define-record-type, the 3rd "argument" is a predicate name
- i.e. a symbol, and cannot be a list.

For SRFI-76, all arguments except the first type-specifier (in the
implicit-naming form) must be lists.

So an implementation can offer both at the same time.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/