Hi, Michael Sperber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> 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. > > This was because the names were used to name the bits of information, > which could be combined in various different ways through compound > conditions. There's just no way to use positions with SRFI 35. Right. Thanks for the clarification, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
