Re: Disjoint types in SRFIs Lassi Kortela 13 Jun 2021 11:55 UTC
> (1) It would be one more convention everyone has to agree to. So are UUIDs. > (2) It has no benefit because the uid is hidden from the user anyway. Neutral. > (3) It clashes with the earlier convention of record-name-UUID proposed > in R6RS. This is a good argument. > (4) It breaks down should one SRFI want to define two different record > types with the same name (unlikely but I not completely). In that case you would append a word to disambiguate them. The major reason against I tend to disfavor UUIDs is that they are not human-readable, and it's best to avoid non-human-readable things in source code. That means they are not self-documenting either. If we use UUIDs for standard record types, it would be prudent to keep a list of them anyway. Our most important goal is to avoid name clashes, which any of the proposals so far should be able to accomplish easily.