On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, William D Clinger wrote: > * Allow the <parent rtd> and <parent cd> of a > parent-rtd clause to be arbitrary expressions, > as in the 5.97 draft. (Notice, however, that > the <record name> bound by a define-record-type > is now an ordinary variable and can serve as the > <parent rtd> without having to resort to a use > of record-type-descriptor). > > * Extend the parent clause to allow any expression, > which must of course evaluate to an rtd.
Just a small note: Then the difference between (parent ---) and (parent-rtd ---) would be that parent-rtd takes a second cd argument. Since (parent ---) takes an rtd, (parent-rtd ---) would be a very unfortunate choice of name for the two-argument variant. If this proposal were adopted, it would perhaps be better to merge both functions into a (parent ---) clause with an optional second argument. After all the work that has gone into r6rs, might it not be worthwhile delaying (g)ratification for another version or two? Andre _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
