Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Ken Dickey
(13 Sep 2005 20:27 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Richard Kelsey
(18 Sep 2005 14:08 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Michael Sperber
(20 Sep 2005 10:21 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Richard Kelsey
(20 Sep 2005 14:29 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Michael Sperber
(20 Sep 2005 15:15 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Richard Kelsey (20 Sep 2005 15:27 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Michael Sperber
(20 Sep 2005 15:53 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction?
Andre van Tonder
(20 Sep 2005 16:24 UTC)
|
Re: Why Single Inheritance Restriction? Richard Kelsey 20 Sep 2005 15:27 UTC
From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> Cc: srfi-76@srfi.schemers.org Richard Kelsey <xxxxxx@s48.org> writes: > In some particular order? No---at least the current draft doesn't specify one, keeping with Scheme's tradition here. Actually, it does give an order. "Parent init expressions, if any, are evaluated before child init expressions." > What are the semantics of a partially initialized record? I don't think there's a way to get one. It depends on whether or not the 'init' expressions count as initializing the records. By the way, in what context are the <constructor argument>s in (parent <parent name> <constructor argument> *) evaluated? Specifically, do they have any access to the values passed to the subtype constructor? -Richard