Am Mi., 2. Nov. 2022 um 13:49 Uhr schrieb Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <[email protected]>: > > Am Mi., 2. Nov. 2022 um 13:28 Uhr schrieb Marc Feeley > <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 2022, at 6:36 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In any case, when we want to support the reading and writing of > > > records, some solutions (and probably the simplest ) require that a > > > record-type registry must be maintained anyway: > > > > > >> (define-record-type foo (nongenerative ...) ...) > > >> (gc) > > >> (read) > > > <external representation of record type foo> > > > > Please don’t force implementations to use a (centralized) registry. > > Decentralization is necessary for code mobility. > > No centralized repository is needed; at some point, one just has to > transfer the definition of a record type from node A to node B at some > point. This can happen by serializing a record-type definition and > sending it over the wire, or one can use the Gambit approach by > effectively sending the record-type definition each time along with a > record.
PS: I found your comment very valuable; any lexical format for record types should at least optionally allow to define the record type along with it. I hadn't thought of it before.
