[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Scheme-reports] 5.4 record type definitions
- To: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- Subject: [Scheme-reports] 5.4 record type definitions
- From: Andy Wingo <wingo@x>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 18:16:47 +0200
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?
Scheme-reports mailing list