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 time to resolve this SRFI one way or another.
John Cowan wrote:
> Given that an implementation of SRFI-99 can't really change its
> implementation in any interesting way if one uses only the procedureal
> and/or syntactic libraries but not the inspection one, I propose folding
> the inspection library into the procedural one. In order to support
> rtd-{accessor,mutator} with non-constant arguments, one must have access
> to the rtd object at runtime anyway, including its field list. I think
> the separation is an unnecessary carry-over from R6RS.
I think you're right. The structure of this SRFI was
deliberately patterned after the structure of the R6RS
system. I think that makes the two systems a little
easier to compare, which was one of this SRFI's purposes.
> I add my voice to the call for using lists rather than vectors in the API
> for make-rtd, rtd-constructor, rtd-field-names, and rtd-all-field-names,
> of course without prejudice to the use of vectors or vector-like objects
> internally.
I think the use of vectors is another carry-over from
the R6RS. I don't care about it one way or another.
If the SRFI editor(s) in charge of this SRFI suggest
I make that change, I will.
Will