AndrevanTonder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The interface for simple conditions is different from that of records > but redundantly reproduces much of the functionality of records. > Consider making the interfaces more similar or even dropping simple > conditions as a separate concept and instead using a record hierarchy > for them.
That's certainly a valid implementation strategy. Somewhere in the r6rs-editors archives, I posted such an implementation (of the earlier version of the conditions, but the changes for 5.92 only make this easier). Here's why they're different: Because of compound conditions, the record accessors won't be the condition accessors. (Similarly for the predicates, and possibly for the constructors.) This is why a little bit of scaffolding is needed. Also, in my experience, introspection is more common for conditions than for garden-variety records. There's also some other natural specialization, such as the fact that fields are always immutable, and that accessor names often don't derive straightforwardly from the type names. Consequently, I think that the conditions are already more similar to the records as of 5.92. Maybe it would help if you were a bit more specific as to what kind of change you would like to see. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
