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.
From: Richard Kelsey <kelsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >Do you mean <type name> considered as a name or <type name> >considered as a symbol? Suppose I define my own record macro >that does not include a <type name> and expands into >DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE: > > (define-syntax define-my-record-type > (syntax-rules () > ((define-my-record-type . stuff) > (define-record-type this-type . stuff)))) > >All of my record types might turn out to be the same. > >In any case, I think it would be a bad idea to introduce a >new name space. You are certainly right; it is either a new namespace or macro system -dependent tricks to hook to the standard namespace (it works in syntax-case v2.1 via bound-identifier=?, but the semantics of the whole thing is not very clear). Generativity is not ideal, but a new namespace will probably make things worse. Sergei