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 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.