leppie scripsit:

> DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE as in the small language does not support
> inheritance. I assume inheritable records will be part of the larger
> language.

Probably, but WG2 has not made any decision to that effect.  The only
thing definitely decided is that there will be a procedural interface
with inspection.

> The question is how this will be implemented: - Will
> DEFINE-RECORD-TYPE be extended in the large language? (If so, how?) -
> Will there be a new syntax, ie DEFINE-SUPER-RECORD-TYPE that accepts
> the base record type as a parameter?

Definitely nobody knows these things.

> - Will the record types be compatible (or rather should it be) with
> each other?

I certainly hope so.

> Secondly is the name part of the record. The draft says:
>
> <name> is bound to a representation of the record type itself,
> possibly as a syntactic form.

That's done so that upward compatibility with an inheritance system is
possible.

> I think this needs to be completely unambiguous as it will break
> portability.

It would be premature to settle on a specific type of binding now.  Note
that this requirement is copied from SRFI 9.  At least one existing
implementation violates it, namely Chicken's (apparently there were too
many complaints from users about compiler warnings that the name was
bound but unused).

--
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own
skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among
other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague.  --Edsger Dijkstra

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports