This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 57 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 57 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Jorgen, thanks for your comments > > On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Jorgen Schaefer wrote: > >> [...] Is there a good reason for changing the argument order and >> makeup of the DEFINE-RECORD macro from that specified in SRFI-9? >> [...] > > So as to permit omissions without running into ambiguities (if you agree > that the possibility of ommissions is a good thing). > [...] Thanks for the explanation. I sure don't want to heat up that old argument, and ... > Notice that the current SRFI specifies DEFINE-RECORD instead of the > SRFI-9 DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE, so legacy code using SRFI-9 can be adapted > by adding a simple macro defining the latter in terms of the former. ... this "minuscle" detail eluded me somehow. Sorry. :-) Do you think it would be a good idea to include a compatibility macro for people who prefer the other syntax, but still want to use some of the features of the present SRFI? (define-syntax define-record-type (syntax-rules () ((define-record-type type-name (constructor-name field-tag ...) predicate-name field-spec ...) (define-record type-name (constructor-name field-tag ...) (field-spec ...) predicate-name)))) > While I specified matching on records (and only on records - the > rest is not required) because without it, records are much less > useful to me, there certainly is a strong argument for splitting > matching off into a separate SRFI, and I *might* do that if I > can summon up the required mixture of masochism and ruthlessness > for it. Good luck for (and I mean that), I'm looking forward to a good matching SRFI. Thanks for your considerate reply. I think I'm happy with the SRFI now :-) Greetings and thanks, -- Jorgen -- ((email . "forcer@xxxxxxxxx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/") (gpg . "1024D/028AF63C") (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))