[R6RS] Records and Modules

[Manuel Serrano]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:15:47 -0500
dyb at cs.indiana.edu wrote:

> > 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.
I have missed it. This is why I have not answered. Your CO-EXPORT thing
seems acceptable to me. Thanks.

-- 
Manuel