Hi, Brian Jaress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without record types, you'd probably have a definition somewhere like: > > (define (add value weight) > ;something) > > With 5.97 record types, it would be: > > (define (add value weight-accessor) > ;something) This is similar to SRFI-9 records and to built-in types: you usually don't pass accessors around to procedures; instead, procedures that need it are expected to import the modules that define `container-weight', `vector-ref', `car', etc. This seems consistent to me. > I'd like to see records handled like vectors, but with symbols instead > of numbers: > > (record-ref record 'field) > (record-set! record 'field value) Interestingly, this was the approach taken by SRFI-35, although one of its authors is also the author of SRFI-9. I didn't find any clue in the list archive as to why named fields were preferred over accessors. Maybe because it allows for very loose connections between the module that instantiates a condition and the one that handles it? Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
