A comment or two from the peanut gallery... On 7/24/07, Thomas Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've reconciled myself to R6 partly by thinking it's useful, partly that it's an accurate report on where folks are at -- but also partly because it seems like a challenge problem: "simplify *this*, if you can" it seems to beg for. If you know what I mean.
There is enough to like about the draft that I will happily import (rnrs (5 97)) even if you all take you marbles and go home tomorrow. The library system, Unicode, bytevectors, i/o, etc., well done folks!!! Records. Hohum! I guess as a "report" (rnRs) it ought to include something like this, but I've never taken to the style of make-type type? type-field type-field-set! Scheme already has an encapsulation mechanism: closures! It should be "(<type> 'make) ((obj 'is-a?) <type>) (obj 'field)" and either "(set! (obj 'field) value)" or "((obj 'set!) 'field value)" according to your tastes. Which do you prefer: (port-has-port-position? x) and the (rnrs io ports (6)) export list, or ((x 'has?) 'position) and <port>? There! How's that for simple? The only trick is to get a compiler smart enough to make something like C++ virtual tables out of it. Crawling back under my rock... -John
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
