Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 13 Jun 2021 09:06 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Lassi Kortela 13 Jun 2021 10:16 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 13 Jun 2021 10:29 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Lassi Kortela 13 Jun 2021 10:40 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 13 Jun 2021 11:50 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Lassi Kortela 13 Jun 2021 11:55 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 13 Jun 2021 13:11 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 13 Jun 2021 18:58 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 13 Jun 2021 19:18 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 15 Jun 2021 19:30 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 15 Jun 2021 20:52 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs John Cowan 15 Jun 2021 21:55 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 16 Jun 2021 07:34 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 18 Jun 2021 20:33 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 18 Jun 2021 20:43 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Jun 2021 10:02 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Feeley 19 Jun 2021 12:29 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Jun 2021 12:46 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 19 Jun 2021 17:49 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Jun 2021 18:06 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 19 Jun 2021 17:08 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Jun 2021 17:18 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 19 Jun 2021 18:09 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Jun 2021 18:23 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe 19 Jun 2021 20:34 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 19 Jun 2021 21:03 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs John Cowan 13 Jun 2021 20:52 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 13 Jun 2021 21:17 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs John Cowan 13 Jun 2021 21:38 UTC
Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 14 Jun 2021 07:04 UTC

Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Lassi Kortela 13 Jun 2021 10:40 UTC

> Show me any attempt and I claim that I will be able to show you its
> particular flaw.

OK, so there is more than one separate flaw.

> No; they are not shown to people. That's why the underlying record type
> is assumed to be opaque. The wording doesn't force the implementation to
> actually define a record type. If it wants so, it could use the
> following definition (assuming R6RS):
>
> (define-record-type fxmapping
>    (sealed #t) (opaque #t)
>    (nongenerative fxmapping-2bf340e5-304e-436e-8478-926c7040f3f)
>    (fields ...)
>    ...)

OK, in that case a UUID seems fine.

>     Another alternative is to allocate human-readable IDs and track them in
>     a table in <https://registry.scheme.org/
>
> This solution has two obvious disadvantages:
>
> (1) It needs a central registry outside the SRFI process.
> (2) It doesn't treat every SRFI fairly. Once a human-readable ID like
> "mapping" is registered, it can hardly be reused by a later SRFI. See
> the rationale of SRFI 97 why it is, say, (srfi :41 streams) and not
> (srfi streams).

Any reason not to simply use things like "srfi-146-mapping" and
"srfi-224-mapping" as the unique names? If the same type is used in more
than one SRFI, it could be numbered after the first SRFI it appeared in.