A possible clarification. When <constructor spec> is (<constructor name> <field name> ...),
* <field name> can be either one of <field name> in the define-record-type form, or any of ancestor's field name. * In the case if the record definition has the same field name as one of ancestor's, it shadows the ancestor's field name for the purpose of constructor; the constructor's argument initializes child's slot, and the ancestor's slot of the same name is left uninitialized. * It is an error if the same identifier appears more than once in <field name> .. of the constructor spec. These are not explicit in srfi-99's syntactic layer section, but can be derived from the description of procedural layer description. On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler <[email protected]> wrote: > John Cowan, co-author of SRFI 131, ERR5RS Record Syntax > (reduced), has asked me to announce "last call" for this > SRFI. He believes that SRFI 131 is ready for finalization, > but would like to give reviewers one last chance to submit > corrections and feedback before we finalize it. > > If you're interested in this SRFI, please give your feedback > via the SRFI 131 mailing list before Fri 12 Feb. After > that, assuming that no major revisions are required, we will > declare it final. > > This "last call" period is an experimental addition to the > SRFI process. I welcome your feedback on the idea. (Please > send that feedback to srfi-editors at srfi.schemers.org.) > > Thanks. > To unsubscribe from this list please goto > http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=rrJbdCo6MJOz7pyx0eSPZxPyn4eaWzft >
