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

Re: Miscellaneous loose ends

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 76 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 76 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Andre van Tonder <andre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>  Additional questions:
>  - What is the scope of the bindings of the accessors?  Can I write
>    (define-type point (previous)
>      (fields (x (point-x)) (point-x previous))
>              (y (point-y)) (point-y previous))))

Yes; I'll try to clarify.
>  - Same question for the constructor and predicate.

>  - What is the scope of the binding of the type itself?  Can I write
>    (define-type foo ()
>      (fields (x mutable) (......(type-descriptor foo).......)))

No, because it may be a syntactic binding.  (This might need to be
worked out at some point.)
> - Can I use (parent <parent name> ...) in the syntactic layer to extend
>   a record type that has been defined procedurally?  

No; this is the second-to-last issue.

> - Related to previous:  Do <record name>s belong to a separate namespace    
>   from ordinary identifiers?  

No.  This is Scheme, after all.
> - Does TYPE-DESCRIPTOR need to be syntax, or can it be a procedure?   

Needs to be syntax.

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla