Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
Andre van Tonder
(15 Sep 2005 16:35 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
Michael Sperber
(15 Sep 2005 18:15 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
Andre van Tonder
(15 Sep 2005 20:41 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
Michael Sperber
(16 Sep 2005 07:11 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
Andre van Tonder
(16 Sep 2005 12:56 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
Michael Sperber
(16 Sep 2005 17:12 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal
Andre van Tonder
(16 Sep 2005 15:23 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal Michael Sperber (16 Sep 2005 17:14 UTC)
|
Re: Problems with field initialization: Proposal Michael Sperber 16 Sep 2005 17:14 UTC
Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> writes: > It has occurred to me that a simple FIELD-VALUES macro could > translate into the VALUES expression of my suggestion, so you can write: > > > (define-type eq-hash-table > (constructor (lambda (pred hasher size) > (field-values (parent-arguments pred > hasher > size) > (child-fields 0)))) > (fields (gc-count mutable))) > > > Would this help satisfy your concern regarding clarity? Well, yeah, sorta, but you now sacrifice a bit of simplicity ... :-) (It's how many of the games we played when designing the draft came out.) -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla