Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Ken Dickey (13 Sep 2005 20:27 UTC)
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Richard Kelsey (18 Sep 2005 14:08 UTC)
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Michael Sperber (20 Sep 2005 10:21 UTC)
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Richard Kelsey (20 Sep 2005 14:29 UTC)
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Michael Sperber (20 Sep 2005 15:15 UTC)
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Richard Kelsey (20 Sep 2005 15:27 UTC)
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Michael Sperber (20 Sep 2005 15:53 UTC)
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Andre van Tonder (20 Sep 2005 16:24 UTC)

Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Richard Kelsey 20 Sep 2005 15:27 UTC

   From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
   Cc: srfi-76@srfi.schemers.org

   Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> writes:

   > In some particular order?

   No---at least the current draft doesn't specify one, keeping with
   Scheme's tradition here.

Actually, it does give an order.  "Parent init expressions, if any,
are evaluated before child init expressions."

   > What are the semantics of a partially initialized record?

   I don't think there's a way to get one.

It depends on whether or not the 'init' expressions count
as initializing the records.

By the way, in what context are the <constructor argument>s in

  (parent <parent name> <constructor argument> *)

evaluated?  Specifically, do they have any access to the values
passed to the subtype constructor?
                                              -Richard