Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@later.het.brown.edu> writes:

> * This does not seem compelling, since I have to wrap the constructor anyway
>   in many quite elementary cases due to the limitations on custom field
>   initialization:

But you and I are currently having a discussion meant to fix this, no?

>>From document:
> ==============
> "... this creates the need for an extra procedure name which is not part of
> the record type's definition.  This means that extensions which deal with the
> record type's definition (such extensions to support keyword arguments, etc.)
> don't have access to the record type's actual constructor."
>
> * This does not seem correct.  As a counterexample, SRFI-57 is exactly
>   such an extension of SRFI-9.  It hides the underlying SRFI-9
>   constructor as follows (schematically):  [...]

I don't understand how your response fits the document.  You talk
about hiding identifiers, the rationale in the draft is about
something else.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla