On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 05:31 -0600, Eduardo Cavazos wrote: > > I'd rather base my 'define-record-type' deriviative on a full version. > > I.e. start with the full definition and throw in my extensions.
Hmmm... I initially thought starting out with the full code for 'define-record-type' was the way to go because, after looking at a couple of real world implementations of it, the code for "parsing" a 'define-record-type' form seemed to be quite complex; I figured I may as well start from the whole macro instead of just yanking out the part that does the parsing. But... On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 15:37 -0800, Derick Eddington wrote: > You don't need to go that far. Just extract what you need and pass > everything else through: ... the version you posted is not bad at all. So I'll go with that. Thanks Derrick! Ed
