Miscellaneous comments
John Cowan
(16 Aug 2015 01:05 UTC)
|
Re: Miscellaneous comments
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(16 Aug 2015 13:21 UTC)
|
Re: Miscellaneous comments
John Cowan
(16 Aug 2015 14:04 UTC)
|
Re: Miscellaneous comments taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (16 Aug 2015 16:29 UTC)
|
Re: Miscellaneous comments
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(16 Aug 2015 19:50 UTC)
|
Re: Miscellaneous comments
taylanbayirli@xxxxxx
(17 Aug 2015 08:21 UTC)
|
Re: Miscellaneous comments taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 16 Aug 2015 16:29 UTC
John Cowan <xxxxxx@mercury.ccil.org> writes: > Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer scripsit: > >> The SRFI doesn't really use any form of inspection into record types. >> It just piggybacks `define-record-type' to take note of the newly >> defined data type, and create tables mapping symbols to the data type's >> accessors and modifiers. > > But that's a choice made by the sample implementation. It should be > possible to support this SRFI on top of record inspection, and the whole > point of opaque records is that they are uninspectable, so they should > be exempt from the requirement to support this SRFI. For example, > ports might be implemented as opaque records, but users shouldn't be > able to use this SRFI to see into the implementation details of ports. Hm, I see. I will refine the specification to make it clear that if a record type is opaque, then ref and set! should only work with the "public API" of the type. Perhaps that warrants the addition of an API to register getters/setters manually. Maybe such an API is a good idea on its own merit. I'll add it. >> (set! (~ foo car bar) quux), > > I like that. Nice. I'm mostly done specifying and implementing it. There are now two people opposing 3-argument set!. I'll wait for some more input before removing it. Taylan