Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Lassi Kortela 13 Jun 2021 10:16 UTC
> It has already been argued several times that all these attempts so far > are logically flawed and don't imply what they should. Is there a succint statement of the flaw? > Luckily, there is a solution, which can be implemented right now and > which is future-proof, namely using uids, through which we can exactly > express what we want. > > So the above sentence cited from SRFI 224 would become: > > "Fxmappings are instances of a sealed, opaque, nongenerative record type > with uid > fxmapping-2bf340e5-304e-436e-8478-926c7040f3f." UUIDs are trivially unique, but suboptimal to have in contexts where they are shown to people. Would this be something along the lines of: (define-record-type fxmapping-2bf340e5-304e-436e-8478-926c7040f3f ...) Another alternative is to allocate human-readable IDs and track them in a table in <https://registry.scheme.org/>. Here too we'd be free to add identifiers at SRFI publication time, RnRS publication time, or any other time.