Update available-- possibly last before finalization
David Van Horn
(08 Dec 2004 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization
Felix Winkelmann
(09 Dec 2004 06:26 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization Andre van Tonder (09 Dec 2004 16:55 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization
Felix Winkelmann
(10 Dec 2004 06:18 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization
Andre van Tonder
(10 Dec 2004 11:47 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization
Felix Winkelmann
(10 Dec 2004 13:03 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization
Andre van Tonder
(10 Dec 2004 18:34 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization
Felix Winkelmann
(13 Dec 2004 05:50 UTC)
|
Re: Update available-- possibly last before finalization Andre van Tonder 09 Dec 2004 16:55 UTC
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Felix Winkelmann wrote: > Hm... Non-generative record definitions would be nice. Yes, although the particular Chez Scheme specification would be difficult to implement portably. One thing I like about the current specification is that it can be implemented as a macro layer on top of SRFI-9, as the reference implementation indeed does, without having to manipulate the innards, in particular the record type descriptors, of SRFI-9. Because of this philosophy, it can be used on any Scheme implementation that has SRFI-9, and it can also be easily adapted to Schemes that have their own efficient native records. Including nongenerativity would make this impossible, and for this reason is perhaps better left to a future SRFI. Regards Andre