This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 99 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 99 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
It is inconsistent that define-record-type provides succinct <field
spec> which automatically make names for the accessor and mutator but it
requires (annoyingly, not succinctly) using, and remembering to use, #t
#t to get it to automatically make names for the constructor and
predicate. I imagine it's like that to be compatible with SRFI-9, but
how important is that compatibility, i.e., how much will that
compatibility be used into the longer-term future? I'd much rather have
define-record-type's syntax be:
<record type definition>
-> (define-record-type <type spec>
<field spec> ...)
<type spec> -> <type name>
-> (<type name> <parent>)
-> (<type name> <parent> <constructor spec> <predicate spec>)
The first two <type spec> do automatic naming for the constructor and
predicate. The last uses <constructor spec> and <predicate spec> the
same as the current draft describes.
--
: Derick
----------------------------------------------------------------