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.
Alan Watson wrote: > I think you either need to explicitly justify the new procedural > system or use the R6RS procedural system for your new syntactic system. I will add explicit justification. The executive summary is that the record-constructor descriptors of the R6RS procedural layer put it over the top. Those things complicate the usual cases, simplifying only unusual cases. That's the wrong tradeoff. So long as we're fixing that, we might as well use names for fields instead of numeric indexes. Named fields are, after all, one of the things people usually associate with records. And so we arrive at an alternative API: simpler and more idiomatic, but perfectly compatible with the R6RS procedural and inspection layers. Programmers who see advantages in the ERR5RS syntactic layer but not in the procedural or inspection layers are free to use (err5rs records syntactic) with (rnrs records procedural) and (rnrs records inspection). Indeed, all five of the following libraries play well together: (err5rs records syntactic) (err5rs records procedural) (err5rs records inspection) (rnrs records procedural) (rnrs records inspection) The only library that doesn't interoperate smoothly with the above libraries is (rnrs records syntactic), and there's absolutely no hope of repairing that library because its use of a radically different notion of record type was a fundamental mistake in its design. Will