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 Felix Winkelmann 10 Dec 2004 06:18 UTC
Andre van Tonder wrote: > 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. > From what my experiments show the current SRFI-57 reference implementation does *not* work on systems that provide a non-generative SRFI-9, or non- generative native records. I haven't understood your code well enough to say whether it's too difficult to handle generative and non-generatve records, but if you say so I accept that. It would just be a handy thing to have. Having only generative records makes it just impossible to use the constructor macros in a separate compilation model, AFAICT. cheers, felix