On 2021-06-13 21:18 +0200, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> > How does associating a type with a unique string guarantee its
> > disjointness in Scheme's type system?  Unless a future standard
> > incorporates something about types with different UUIDs being
> > disjoint into its semantics, I don't see how this is any more
> > meaningful than the current advisory statements.  It seems a
> > little like associating booleans with the Empire State Building
> > and vectors with the Chrysler Building; sure, those are unique
> > things, but what does it say about Scheme?
> >
>
> R6RS §11.1. Base types: "No object satisfies more than one of the following
> predicates: ..."
>
> [snip]
>
> PS: As the R7RS base language is not rich enough, I have to cite R6RS here,
> but the semantics can be applied mutatis mutandis to R7RS as well (as we
> are talking about opaque and sealed record types).

Sorry, I would like to have Read The Fine Standard before
commenting.

I'm still hesitant to adopt this for SRFI 224; as John mentions,
I wonder if it makes sense to require *all* implementations of SRFI
224 to provid a fxmapping type with the same UID.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"In conversations with Web performance advocates, I sometimes
feel like a hippie talking to SUV owners about fuel economy."
--Maciej Ceglowski