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 (begin (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 DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE, namely, (gensym 'type) in place of 'type should give us the natural degree of genericity. It should also allows us to write DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE wherever we write DEFINE. -- Matthias