On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 22:41 -0400, Lynn Winebarger wrote: > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Derick Eddington > <[email protected]> wrote: > > [good info clipped] > >> [*] Am I the only Schemer who wants this facility? > > > > No. I would like it to portably exist, and I know of others who also > > do. IIUC, there was discussion of this issue during the R6RS draft > > period but "internal import and/or export" weren't adopted in order to > > "keep things simple". You may find interesting the thread at: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_thread/thread/1ba73b8267304876/7dd876d1532853d6 > > Good reference. Aziz's "environment-symbols" and internal > import/export would simplify using Larceny's "primitives" library > syntax extension.
JTMI for those who might not know, environment-symbols for Larceny can be made as: (define (environment-symbols env) (map cadar (environment-bindings env))) with environment-bindings imported from the non-standard Larceny-specific library (rnrs eval reflection). > My footnote was actually referring to the use of qualified field names > for record access (i.e. x.field1) rather than destructuring by pattern > matching or explicit procedural access/mutation. Oh yeah. Sorry for misconstruing that. -- : Derick ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Larceny-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/larceny-users
