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

a clarification and/or a small modification

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 9 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 9 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Richard's record proposal is a huge step forward. Thanks! 

I would like to raise one question: 

  Why isn't define-record-type generative? 

Suppose we have 

    (define-record-type :pare (kons x y) pare? (x kar) (y kdr))
    (define zzz (kons 1 2))
    (define-record-type :pare (kons x y) pare? (x kar) (y kdr))
    (kar zzz))

I would like to think the two record definitions introduce a disjoint class
of data, analogous to 
  datatype a_record = ...
in ML rather than 
  type a_record = ...
The proposal seems to say that the two introduce the same class of data.

Unless I am overlooing something, a simple change in the implementation of

  (gensym 'type) 

in place of 


should give us the natural degree of genericity. It should also allows us
to write DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE wherever we write DEFINE.

-- Matthias