[R6RS] Re: Less verbose type definition form

dyb at cs.indiana.edu dyb
Tue Jul 19 17:54:46 EDT 2005

> If that compromise proposal is so terribly
> unsatisfactory to you, I'd suggest that we put only the procedural
> interface into the R6RS, and put the competing syntactic proposals
> into separate SRFIs.

I think we should consider including just the procedural interface to
be a "poison pill" to be taken only if we're desparate.  The procedural
interface is certainly useful, but without a syntactic interface we
will have failed to produce a record facility that we actually want
programmers to use directly in their code.


More information about the R6RS mailing list