Am So., 6. Nov. 2022 um 22:03 Uhr schrieb Shiro Kawai <[email protected]>: > > Ah, Gauche already uses #[...] for another purpose. > Could it be an extension of srfi-10, e..g #,(<rtd> ....)? Oh, wait, that > conflicts with R6RS. Hmm...
The problem is that any sensible lexical syntax will probably conflict with some existing syntax of some implementations. Maybe SRFI 237 should mention the possibility of a #!srfi-237 (or similar) directive (like #!fold-case), which presence would enable SRFI 237-syntax in case the implementation does not support it in its default reader mode. > By the way, if the record type has a protocol clause, would the reader bypass > it? Yes. It's just a raw copy of the record's fields (and that's why only non-opaque records are supported). PS: I still have to think about how to match unknown records with syntax-case (if the generalization of syntax objects mentioned in SRFI is adopted). > > > On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 6:40 AM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> An external representation for non-generative, non-opaque records >> (allowing simple serialization and deserialization) is now specified >> in my latest commit (in the personal repo).
