> As far as I can tell, with R6RS we have to keep up tradition (in > several Schemes) of explicitly exporting every > accessor/mutator/predicate/constructor for a (syntactic) record type > definition. If this issue was discussed, I'd be interested to read > that discussion.
There wasn't much discussion. Here are a couple of messages that mention a co-export form I proposed to address this: http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2005-July/000752.html http://www.r6rs.org/r6rs-editors/2005-July/000755.html The co-export form also showed up in the "Issues" section of SRFI 83: http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-83/srfi-83.html Kent _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
