Am So., 30. Okt. 2022 um 23:20 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <[email protected]>: > > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 12:57 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> Global record-type definitions are effectively non-generative. > > > Quite so. So even if the default kind of record-type is generative, the > global ones can be treated as if they are non-generative, which means there > is no additional overhead for most record types.
To recognize this, a sufficiently smart compiler is needed, of course, and it depends that no relevant extensions past R[67]RS are present. As soon as the implementation allows to load a library several times, a generative record-type definition cannot be compiled as a non-generative one. > If we default to non-generative local records, then we get unexpected results. In what sense "unexpected"? Maybe, I should have put my "95%" as the ratio of *local* record-type definitions that are (or should have been) non-generative in my initial post.
