Hello!
Documentation attached. Comments?
BTW, why does ‘set-field’ has the record as its 2nd argument instead of
1st (unlike ‘set-fields’)?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
From f7877d47009dc85e74bc63fd562b77f552a54bd6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Ludovic=20Court=C3=A8s?= l...@gnu.org
Date: Sat, 10
Hi Ludovic,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Documentation attached. Comments?
Thanks! Looks good to me, modulo a few comments below.
BTW, why does ‘set-field’ has the record as its 2nd argument instead of
1st (unlike ‘set-fields’)?
Good question. I followed the syntax of
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
[...]
BTW, why does ‘set-field’ has the record as its 2nd argument instead of
1st (unlike ‘set-fields’)?
Good question. I followed the syntax of 'set-field' from your original
patch, but that argument order did
Hi Ludovic,
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
+(pass-if set-fields with one path as a prefix of another
+ (let ()
+(define-immutable-record-type foo (make-foo x) foo?
+ (x foo-x)
+ (y foo-y set-foo-y)
+
Hi Mark!
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
I've attached a slightly improved functional record setters patch.
The only change since yesterday's version is to the test suite, which
now includes tests of the compile-time error checking.
Nice, thanks!
It addresses my main concern with the
Hi Ludovic!
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
At the time you were concerned about the “weight” of these macros. Are
you just more relaxed now, or do you have a psyntax optimization in the
pipeline? :-)
I did some experiments, and on my 64-bit system this patch increases the
bytecode
Hello all,
Apologies for the long delay on this, but I've finally produced an
improved implementation of functional record setters for stable-2.0.
It is fully compatible with the earlier API proposed by Ludovic in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2012-04/msg00032.html
(i.e.
Hello all,
I've attached a slightly improved functional record setters patch.
The only change since yesterday's version is to the test suite, which
now includes tests of the compile-time error checking.
Here's a brief overview of the provided functionality.
First, 'define-immutable-record-type'
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I’ll let you see whether/how you can borrow from this in your code, if
that’s fine with you.
Okay, will do.
Any progress
Hi Mark!
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I’ll let you see whether/how you can borrow from this in your code, if
that’s fine with you.
Okay, will do.
Any progress on this? ;-)
I’m happy to help with updating the docs, for instance, if you
Hi Mark!
And Happy Friday, as our friend would say. :-)
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I’d still want named single-field setters, for convenience. For that,
we
Hi Ludovic!
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I’d say ‘set-fields’, no?
Okay, good enough.
Would these checks be alleviated by Andy’s work on peval “predicates”?
Unfortunately, no. The 'vtable' field of a struct is a mutable field,
and in fact when a GOOPS class is redefined, the
Hi Ludovic!
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
The public interface I've created is quite a bit different than what
we've been discussing so far. I'm open to changing it, but here's what
the attached patch currently exports from (srfi srfi-9 gnu):
() Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org
() Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:04:13 -0400
However, I find the term 'set' misleading, since no mutation is
taking place. Maybe 'update'? I dunno, I don't have strong
feelings on this.
How about ‘overlay’ (or ‘over-set’ or ‘mask’) or ‘interpose’ or
‘insinuate’
Hi Mark!
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
The public interface I've created is quite a bit different than what
we've been discussing so far. I'm open to changing it, but here's what
the attached patch
Hi Ludovic!
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
I’d still want named single-field setters, for convenience. For that,
we probably still need a separate ‘define-immutable-record-type’.
Agreed.
Cool! Could
I rushed out my last email because I didn't want anyone else to waste
time working on the same functionality. Needless to say, this is very
preliminary work. A few errata in my last email:
(define-tagged-inlinable (key value) ... (name formals ...) body ...)
There's a missing pair of parens
I wrote:
I rushed out my last email because I didn't want anyone else to waste
time working on the same functionality.
More importantly, I just realized that the patch I sent out included
only part of my changes. It was missing my initial work to clean up the
srfi-9 code before I started
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
+((_ check? struct-expr ((getter . rest) expr) ...)
+ ;;
+ ;; FIXME: Improve compile-time error reporting:
+ ;; 1. report an error if any getter-path is a
+ ;; prefix of any other getter-path.
+ ;;
19 matches
Mail list logo
