[R6RS] Records and Modules
Fri Jul 8 02:44:18 EDT 2005
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
> 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.
More information about the R6RS