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

>  Additional questions:
>
>  - What is the scope of the bindings of the accessors?  Can I write
>
>    (define-type point (previous)
>      (fields (x (point-x)) (point-x previous))
>              (y (point-y)) (point-y previous))))

Yes; I'll try to clarify.

>  - Same question for the constructor and predicate.

Yes.

>  - What is the scope of the binding of the type itself?  Can I write
>
>    (define-type foo ()
>      (fields (x mutable) (......(type-descriptor foo).......)))

No, because it may be a syntactic binding.  (This might need to be
worked out at some point.)

> - Can I use (parent <parent name> ...) in the syntactic layer to extend
>   a record type that has been defined procedurally?

No; this is the second-to-last issue.

> - Related to previous:  Do <record name>s belong to a separate namespace
>   from ordinary identifiers?

No.  This is Scheme, after all.

> - Does TYPE-DESCRIPTOR need to be syntax, or can it be a procedure?

Needs to be syntax.

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