[R6RS] Implicit naming for record procedures [was: Internal DEFINE
Mon Apr 25 04:18:42 EDT 2005
Thanks for responding on this issue---I see this as a follow-up mail
to my original post. In the "internal DEFINE" thread, I was mainly
trying to illustrate our differences in background.
dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:
>> After initially hacking with record-type definition forms that
>> implicitly construct names, I've come to appreciate the added clarity
>> (and, often, flexibility) of always specifying the names explicitly.
>> Subsequently, I wrote a lot of code with PLT's DEFINE-STRUCT (which
>> also chooses the names explicitly), and often found myself frustrated
>> by the lack of flexibility or the loss of grepping ability. I
>> certainly don't consider the added typing "bloat."
> While I prefer the naming regularity inherent in the implicit name
> generation, it's fine with me if we allow the names of the constructor,
> predicate, accessors, and setters to be specified explicitly as long as
> I have the option of having them implicitly generated. Can we agree
> on that?
Probably. Moreover, it seems easy to build the implicit-naming
facility on top of the explicit-naming facility. It's doable but
harder and much more annoying to do the reverse. (I've done that in
various forms for PLT Scheme.) I would like to avoid a Common-Lispish
megalomaniac one-size-fits all form with a zillion options. (Plus, a
different name might let me grep specifically for occurrences of "your
form" :-) )
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS