Re: Getter for no field taylanbayirli@xxxxxx (07 Sep 2015 13:38 UTC)
Re: Getter for no field taylanbayirli@xxxxxx 07 Sep 2015 13:38 UTC
Takashi Kato <email@example.com> writes:
>> 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.
It's fine if they use * for a field name. It would be mildly confusing,
but there's no real conflict. If they care, they can give their record
type a different field name.
I just added box support to the spec and sample implementation. It will
be in draft #9.
I also fell for the wrapper mistake while implementing it. :-)
Thanks for the idea!