Hi, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> skribis:
>> We’ll have to discuss the implications of a possible move to >> ‘define-configuration’. For example, ‘define-configuration’ cannot >> report missing field values (for fields that lack a default value) at >> macro-expansion time, contrary to plain ‘define-record-type*’. Anyway, >> future work! > > OK. That's optimization work rather than an impediment to migrate > though, right? If so, I think the value for users of having errors on > invalid field types outweighs run time efficiency :-). I guess my point is “we’ll have to discuss”. It has non-obvious implications such as this one that have a visible impact on users. Ludo’.
