Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Oct 2022 09:09 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
John Cowan
(30 Oct 2022 16:37 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Oct 2022 16:57 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
John Cowan
(30 Oct 2022 22:20 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(31 Oct 2022 09:12 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Feeley
(31 Oct 2022 12:00 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(31 Oct 2022 12:37 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Feeley
(31 Oct 2022 13:21 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(02 Nov 2022 13:09 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(02 Nov 2022 14:57 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(03 Nov 2022 19:20 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(08 Nov 2022 16:23 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types
Daphne Preston-Kendal
(08 Nov 2022 16:24 UTC)
|
Re: Generative and nongenerative record types Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (08 Nov 2022 16:29 UTC)
|
Am Di., 8. Nov. 2022 um 17:24 Uhr schrieb Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org>: > > > On 8 Nov 2022, at 17:22, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote: > > > > PS Due to phasing, record definitions that are used in macro expanders > > have to be defined locally (unless one writes a helper library). E.g.: > > > With begin-for-syntax, this would not be an issue. As wouldn't it with `meta'. But that wasn't my point; we don't have such a thing in the language yet. :) I just wanted to point out that not only for stylistic reasons, one may wish to have local record definitions. (That said, even with `begin-for-syntax' or `meta', it can still make sense to have the record type definition inside the transformer if it is only used there.)