On Thu, 05 May 2011 10:23:30 -0400, Andre van Tonder <[email protected]>
wrote:
> The expansion of the LET body will now introduce two record types, both
> of which
> have type-name y symbolically (but as identifiers they differ). Will
> this
> be a problem?
No, the standard says that the record definition form is generative, which
means that each visitation or evaluation of that form will generate a
distinct type.
There is no option for non-generative records in the current standard.
> The same goes for the field names. Are they compared as identifiers or
> as
> symbols? Again, macro-generated code might generate two field names that
> are the same symbol but different identifiers. Would this be a problem?
This shouldn't come up, because you are required to explicitly give the
accessor name in a record definition, so every binding introduced is
exactly specified by the input. I do not see an error situation if to
accessors of the same name are supplied for different fields, though, and
this should be fixed. I will see if we already have a ticket on this.
The field names and the name of the record at the moment then, are largely
cosmetic, though they could be used by systems which extend this record
form.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
