On Sep 3, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Derick Eddington wrote:
;; Will Clinger hates record-type-descriptor because it
;; requires knowing whether the record type was defined
via the
;; syntactic or procedural interface.
I don't understand this.
The below use is not
;; portable, because it's unspecified which interface a
;; particular implementation used to define &condition.
I don't think so. &condition is a condition type as it says
in the report, and condition types can only be defined using
define-condition-type. So, (record-type-descriptor &condition)
has to return the rtd of &condition.
So I
;; have to say, here's another example adding to my
dislike of
;; record-type-descriptor.
Your last couple of dislikes were not very well founded. :-)
Aziz,,,
