[R6RS] Records and Modules

[dyb at cs.indiana.edu]

> Do you all consider that there is no problem here? Do you all consider
> that it's not a problem to force users to write code such as?
>
> (module id lang
>   (export rec-field1 rec-field1-set!
>           ...
>           rec-field100 rec-field100-set!
>           ...)
>
>   (define-record rec field1 ... field100 ...))

In my records presentation at the Boston meeting, I proposed the following
syntax for dealing with this issue:

   (co-export id co-id ...)

With this syntax, if id is exported, then so too are co-id ....  If we
arrange for define-record to expand into its normal set of definitions
plus a co-export form, we can write:

  (module id lang
    (export rec)
    (define-record rec field1 ... field100 ...))

I prefer this to making modules know directly about records.  Of course,
co-export can be used explicitly or to build other abstractions.

I don't recall getting any feedback on this idea.

Kent