Getter for no field Takashi Kato (07 Sep 2015 12:16 UTC)
Re: Getter for no field taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (07 Sep 2015 12:49 UTC)
Re: Getter for no field Takashi Kato (07 Sep 2015 13:05 UTC)
Re: Getter for no field taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (07 Sep 2015 13:38 UTC)

Re: Getter for no field Takashi Kato 07 Sep 2015 13:04 UTC

> The symbol * is reminiscent of pointer dereferencing in C so it might be
> a good choice.  Others I can think of are #f or #t, but that doesn't
> make too much sense to me.  I like * more...  Thoughts?
Sounds good to me but not sure is there anyone using '* as a field name of
records. (It's not practical but theoretically possible.)

I've just noticed (silly me) that I needed to create 2 wrapping procedures

for box like:

(define (bref box _) (unbox box))
(define (bset! box _ value) (set-box! box value))

Then register them using SRFI-17 and the register-getter-with-setter!

procedure.

It might be better to mention this type of use case.

Cheers,

_/_/

Takashi Kato

Email: xxxxxx@ymail.com