[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] 5.4 record type definitions
- To: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] 5.4 record type definitions
- From: John Cowan <cowan@x>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:12:41 -0400
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Andy Wingo scripsit:
> The draft states that when defining a record type,
> NAME is bound to a representation of the record type itself,
> possibly as a syntactic form.
> Why bother specifying this? What's a syntactic form anyway?
The point for standardization is that the name is bound. Chicken, e.g.,
leaves it unbound (it conforms to SRFI 9 but not the proposal). The
assumption is that WG2 will adopt something involving inheritance, so
the record type will need to be captured somehow, but we don't want to
exclude purely syntactic implementations. I agree that "syntactic form"
is not well-chosen.
It was impossible to inveigle John Cowan <cowan@x>
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Into offering the slightest apology
For his Phenomenology. --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953)
Scheme-reports mailing list