On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Felix Winkelmann wrote:

>xxxxxx@autodrip.bloodandcoffee.net wrote:
>>
>> I am also *vehemently* opposed to the completely unrestricted operator
>> of reflection RECORD->SEXP.  Reflection should either be completely
>> expurgated -- as I'd prefer --, or, if you intend to include any at all
>> in this SRFI, highly controlled by whomever defined the record type.
>
>I think `record->sexp' is actually pretty handy (for example for debugging purposes).
>I vehemently suggest to leave it in.

I agree totally;  Ideas of "encapsulation" meaning you can't get
at stuff are silly in the first place unless you start by assuming
the programmer is stupid.  And this is a Lisp.  Let's not assume
that a Lisp programmer is too stupid to know when not to use
reflection.

I'd prefer the reflection operator to be RECORD->LIST or
RECORD->VECTOR though.  The aggregation of things returned is
probably not going to make a coherent program expression; it
should be expressed as data instead, and the name of the
operator should reflect that.

				Bear