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

Re: why generative?

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.

On 09/03/2009 02:46 AM, Shiro Kawai wrote:
From: will@xxxxxxxxxxx
For record types that are not defined at top level, it is
unclear whether generative or non-generative definitions are
more common.  My intuition says it's likely to depend upon
individual programmers' preferred styles, so no general rule
applies generally.

Probably this point is our difference.  I often like to use
locally defined records to group values semantically, and
such record types should be non-generative to avoid overhead.
But that's a matter of personal preference, so I don't push
this use case particularly.

Some implementations might want an extension to make-rtd or
define-record-type that would allow defining methods as well
as fields.  Or alternatively an implementation-specific
function/syntax to do so.  (Kawa has a define-class form.)

If so, then the method might refer variables in the lexical
scope.  In which case the record-type would presumably need
to be non-generative, since it needs to be to access the local

So for consistency I think the default should be generative.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/