Andy Wingo scripsit:

> The draft states that when defining a record type,
>
>   NAME is bound to a representation of the record type itself,
>   possibly as a syntactic form.
>
> Why bother specifying this?  What's a syntactic form anyway?

The point for standardization is that the name is bound.  Chicken, e.g.,
leaves it unbound (it conforms to SRFI 9 but not the proposal).  The
assumption is that WG2 will adopt something involving inheritance, so
the record type will need to be captured somehow, but we don't want to
exclude purely syntactic implementations.  I agree that "syntactic form"
is not well-chosen.

--
It was impossible to inveigle           John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Into offering the slightest apology
For his Phenomenology.                      --W. H. Auden, from "People" (1953)

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