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