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 10 Dec 2004 11:47 UTC
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Felix Winkelmann wrote: > 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'm not sure why that should be. Would you mind saying a bit more on this? > 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. I agree and I think it would be a good idea to change the paragraph describing generativity, currently just copied from SRFI-9, to acknowledge that the notion of generativity should be adapted in the presence of modules or separate compilation. The precise mechanism would currently probably depend on the details of the module/separate compilation model of the implmementation, but will presumably be fixed in R6RS. Regards Andre