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: > > Systematic use of > > the "rtd-" prefix in SRFI 99 prevents clashes with the > > names defined by the corresponding layers of the R6RS, > > This is not C. We have a module system that allows arbitrary renaming > and prefixing. Or maybe this is C, and you intend this SRFI to be used > in module-less R5RS systems. Ugh. Please wait while I find a peg for > my nose. I do indeed intend for SRFI 99 to be useful in module-less R5RS systems. I also intend for it to be useful in R5RS systems that have been extended with module systems, even though those module systems vary in the convenience of renaming, prefixing, and excluding. Indeed, the record system of SRFI 99 has already proved its worth in Larceny, where records and record type descriptors are first class objects that are routinely passed between R5RS, ERR5RS, and R6RS code without the inconvenience of marshalling, renaming, or coercions. That objective convenience should not be sacrificed for subjective aesthetics. The grumbling about clashes between SRFI 1 and the R6RS libraries (rnrs base), (rnrs lists), and (rnrs) shows that the inconvenience of excluding, renaming, and prefixing is not universally regarded as a trivial matter. > Can you at least rename "rtd-all-field-names" to "rtd-field-names"? I think that would be confusing, because the R6RS defines a record-type-field-names procedure whose result does not include all field names. The "all" therefore serves to remind programmers that rtd-all-field-names is different from record-type-field-names in that important respect. Will