Hi Wolfgang, >> Thus the question: does type dispatching belong to SRFI-253? > > In my opinion, no—I think it belongs in a pattern-matcher, or (as you > suggest) in some sort of inheiritance-based system.
Yes, this reasoning was part of why I removed check-case macro initially. But I'm indecisive—type dispatching is too close to type checking. > You could provide > a simple ‘type-case’ form and its derivatives in SRFI 253, but its > usefulness would be limited without the destructuring power of a full > pattern-matcher. And that would be far outside the current scope. And I'm okay with it being restricted—SRFI-253 is not about generality, it's about a baseline for (relatively simple) type/correctness checks across implementations. And simple type dispatching more or less fits this picture. > But maybe you have something other than a ‘type-case’ in mind? No, it's indeed a simple type-case-like thing, with minor differences dictated by predicate-based nature of SRFI-253. Best of luck, -- Artyom Bologov https://aartaka.me
