|
updated version of SRFI 9 Richard Kelsey (25 Aug 1999 21:17 UTC)
|
|
Re: updated version of SRFI 9
sperber@xxxxxx
(26 Aug 1999 08:59 UTC)
|
updated version of SRFI 9 Richard Kelsey 25 Aug 1999 21:17 UTC
I have made minor modifications to SRFI 9 in response to various
comments, both on the mailing list and elsewhere. The changes are
listed below, followed by the new request.
-Richard
- For clarity, I added the following to the specification. It echos
a sentence in the abstract.
DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE is generative: each use creates a new
record type that is distinct from all existing types, including
other record types and Scheme's predefined types.
- I changed the rationale for restricting record-type definitions to
top level. I left this issue out of the original draft in a futile
attempt to avoid discussing it. What was
Record-type definitions may only occur at top-level (allowing `internal'
record-type definitions would require a more complex implementation).
is now
Record-type definitions may only occur at top-level (there are two
possible semantics for `internal' record-type definitions, generative
and nongenerative, and no consensus as to which to use).
- Record modifiers are now specified as returning a single, unspecified,
value.
- SET!ing any of the bindings introduced by DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE should
not affect the original values of the bindings.
- I added a note that the procedures in the record part of the
implementation can be used to break the record-type abstraction
(for example, RECORD-SET! can be used to modify the type of a record).
Access to these procedures should be restricted.
----------------------------------------------------------------
<H1>Abstract</H1>
This SRFI describes syntax for creating new data types, called record types.
A predicate, constructor, and field accessors and modifiers are defined for
each record type. Each new record type is distinct from all existing types,
including other record types and Scheme's predefined types.
<H1>Rationale</H1>
Many Scheme implementations provide means for creating new types,
usually called either records or structures.
The <code>DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE</code> syntax described here is a slight
simplification of one written for Scheme 48 by Jonathan Rees.
Unlike many record-defining macros or special forms, it
does not create any new identifiers.
Instead, the names of the
record type, predicate, constructor, and so on are all listed explicitly
in the source.
This has the following advantages:
<UL>
<LI> It can be defined using a simple <code>SYNTAX-CASE</code> macro
in Scheme implementations that provide a procedural interface
for creating record types.
<LI> It does not restrict users to a particular naming convention.
<LI> Tools like <code>grep</code> and GNU Emac's tag facility will see the
defining occurance of each identifier.
</UL>
<H1>Specification</H1>
The syntax of a record-type definition is:
<PRE>
<command or definition>
-> <record type definition> ; addition to 8.1.6 in R5RS
<record type definition>
-> (define-record-type <type name>
(<constructor name> <field tag> ...)
<predicate name>
<field spec> ...)
<field spec> -> (<field tag> <accessor name>)
-> (<field tag> <accessor name> <modifier name>)
<field tag> -> <identifier>
<... name> -> <identifier>
</PRE>
<code>DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE<\code> is generative:
each use creates a new record type that is distinct from all existing types,
including other record types and Scheme's predefined types.
Record-type definitions may only occur at top-level (there are two
possible semantics for `internal' record-type definitions, generative
and nongenerative, and no consensus as to which is better).
<P>
An instance of <code>DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE</code> is equivalent to the following
definitions:
<UL>
<LI> <code><type name></code> is bound to a representation of the record
type itself. Operations on record types, such as defining print
methods, reflection, etc. are left to other SRFIs.
<LI> <code><constructor name></code> is bound to a procedure that takes
as many arguments as there are <code><field tag></code>s in the
<code>(<constructor name> ...)</code>
subform and returns a new <code><type name></code> record.
Fields whose tags are listed with <code><constructor name></code>
have the corresponding argument as their
initial value. The initial values of all other fields are unspecified.
<LI> <code><predicate name></code> is a predicate that returns #T when
given a value returned by <code><constructor name></code> and #F
for everything else.
<LI> Each <code><accessor name></code> is a procedure that takes a record
of type <code><type name></code> and returns the current value of the
corresponding field.
It is an error to pass an accessor a value which is not a record of
the appropriate type.
<LI> Each <code><modifier name></code> is a procedure that takes a record
of type <code><type name></code> and a value which becomes the new
value of the corresponding field; an unspecified value is returned.
It is an error to pass a modifier a first
argument which is not a record of the appropriate type.
</UL>
<P>
Records are disjoint from the types listed in Section 4.2 of R5RS.
<P>
<code>Set!</code>ing the value of any of these identifiers has no
effect on the behavior of any of their original values.
<P>
The following
<PRE>
(define-record-type :pare
(kons x y)
pare?
(x kar set-kar!)
(y kdr))
</PRE>
defines <code>KONS</code> to be a constructor, <code>KAR</code> and
<code>KDR</code> to be accessors, <code>SET-KAR!</code> to be a modifier,
and <code>PARE?</code> to be a predicate for <code>:PARE</code>s.
<PRE>
(pare? (kons 1 2)) --> #t
(pare? (cons 1 2)) --> #f
(kar (kons 1 2)) --> 1
(kdr (kons 1 2)) --> 2
(let ((k (kons 1 2)))
(set-kar! k 3)
(kar k)) --> 3
</PRE>
<H1>Implementation</H1>
This code is divided into three layers. In top-down order these are:
<OL>
<LI> Syntax definitions for <code>DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE</code> and an auxillary
macro.
<LI> An implementation of record types with a procedural interface.
Some Scheme implementations already have something close to this.
<LI> Vector-like records implemented in R5RS. This redefines some standard
Scheme procedures and therefor must be loaded before any other code, including
part 2 above. Note that these procedures can be used to break the
record-type abstraction (for example, <code>RECORD-SET!</code> can be used
to modify the type of a record). Access to these procedures should be
restricted.
</OL>
<H2>Syntax definitions</H2>
<PRE>
; Definition of DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE
(define-syntax define-record-type
(syntax-rules ()
((define-record-type type
(constructor constructor-tag ...)
predicate
(field-tag accessor . more) ...)
(begin
(define type
(make-record-type 'type '(field-tag ...)))
(define constructor
(record-constructor type '(constructor-tag ...)))
(define predicate
(record-predicate type))
(define-record-field type field-tag accessor . more)
...))))
; An auxilliary macro for define field accessors and modifiers.
; This is needed only because modifiers are optional.
(define-syntax define-record-field
(syntax-rules ()
((define-record-field type field-tag accessor)
(define accessor (record-accessor type 'field-tag)))
((define-record-field type field-tag accessor modifier)
(begin
(define accessor (record-accessor type 'field-tag))
(define modifier (record-modifier type 'field-tag))))))
</PRE>
<H2>Record types</H2>
<PRE>
; We define the following procedures:
;
; (make-record-type <type-name <field-names>) -> <record-type>
; (record-constructor <record-type<field-names>) -> <constructor>
; (record-predicate <record-type>) -> <predicate>
; (record-accessor <record-type <field-name>) -> <accessor>
; (record-modifier <record-type <field-name>) -> <modifier>
; where
; (<constructor> <initial-value> ...) -> <record>
; (<predicate> <value>) -> <boolean>
; (<accessor> <record>) -> <value>
; (<modifier> <record> <value>) -> <unspecific>
; Record types are implemented using vector-like records. The first
; slot of each record contains the record's type, which is itself a
; record.
(define (record-type record)
(record-ref record 0))
;----------------
; Record types are themselves records, so we first define the type for
; them. Except for problems with circularities, this could be defined as:
; (define-record-type :record-type
; (make-record-type name field-tags)
; record-type?
; (name record-type-name)
; (field-tags record-type-field-tags))
; As it is, we need to define everything by hand.
(define :record-type (make-record 3))
(record-set! :record-type 0 :record-type) ; Its type is itself.
(record-set! :record-type 1 ':record-type)
(record-set! :record-type 2 '(name field-tags))
; Now that :record-type exists we can define a procedure for making more
; record types.
(define (make-record-type name field-tags)
(let ((new (make-record 3)))
(record-set! new 0 :record-type)
(record-set! new 1 name)
(record-set! new 2 field-tags)
new))
; Accessors for record types.
(define (record-type-name record-type)
(record-ref record-type 1))
(define (record-type-field-tags record-type)
(record-ref record-type 2))
;----------------
; A utility for getting the offset of a field within a record.
(define (field-index type tag)
(let loop ((i 1) (tags (record-type-field-tags type)))
(cond ((null? tags)
(error "record type has no such field" type tag))
((eq? tag (car tags))
i)
(else
(loop (+ i 1) (cdr tags))))))
;----------------
; Now we are ready to define RECORD-CONSTRUCTOR and the rest of the
; procedures used by the macro expansion of DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE.
(define (record-constructor type tags)
(let ((size (length (record-type-field-tags type)))
(arg-count (length tags))
(indexes (map (lambda (tag)
(field-index type tag))
tags)))
(lambda args
(if (= (length args)
arg-count)
(let ((new (make-record (+ size 1))))
(record-set! new 0 type)
(for-each (lambda (arg i)
(record-set! new i arg))
args
indexes)
new)
(error "wrong number of arguments to constructor" type args)))))
(define (record-predicate type)
(lambda (thing)
(and (record? thing)
(eq? (record-type thing)
type))))
(define (record-accessor type tag)
(let ((index (field-index type tag)))
(lambda (thing)
(if (and (record? thing)
(eq? (record-type thing)
type))
(record-ref thing index)
(error "accessor applied to bad value" type tag thing)))))
(define (record-modifier type tag)
(let ((index (field-index type tag)))
(lambda (thing value)
(if (and (record? thing)
(eq? (record-type thing)
type))
(record-set! thing index value)
(error "modifier applied to bad value" type tag thing)))))
</PRE>
<H2>Records</H2>
<PRE>
; This implements a record abstraction that is identical to vectors,
; except that they are not vectors (VECTOR? returns false when given a
; record and RECORD? returns false when given a vector). The following
; procedures are provided:
; (record? <value>) -> <boolean>
; (make-record <size>) -> <record>
; (record-ref <record> <index>) -> <value>
; (record-set! <record> <index> <value>) -> <unspecific>
;
; These can implemented in R5RS Scheme as vectors with a distinguishing
; value at index zero, providing VECTOR? is redefined to be a procedure
; that returns false if its argument contains the distinguishing record
; value. EVAL is also redefined to use the new value of VECTOR?.
; Define the marker and redefine VECTOR? and EVAL.
(define record-marker (list 'record-marker))
(define real-vector? vector?)
(define (vector? x)
(and (real-vector? x)
(or (= 0 (vector-length x))
(not (eq? (vector-ref x 0)
record-marker)))))
; This won't work if ENV is the interaction environment and someone has
; redefined LAMBDA there.
(define eval
(let ((real-eval eval))
(lambda (exp env)
((real-eval `(lambda (vector?) ,exp))
vector?))))
; Definitions of the record procedures.
(define (record? x)
(and (real-vector? x)
(< 0 (vector-length x))
(eq? (vector-ref x 0)
record-marker)))
(define (make-record size)
(let ((new (make-vector (+ size 1))))
(vector-set! new 0 record-marker)
new))
(define (record-ref record index)
(vector-ref record (+ index 1)))
(define (record-set! record index value)
(vector-set! record (+ index 1) value))
</PRE>