Re: [Chicken-users] records

[Peter Keller]

On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:10:44PM +0200, felix wrote:
> `define-record' is a rather low-level mechanism. I agree with you
> that extending the record later is somewhat tedious (I come upon
> the same problem sometimes). I recommend using `define-record-type'
> (SRFI-9) in that case, as it provides you with a constructor that
> can be defined to accept only a subset of the init-values. Additionally,
> it is rather portable. 
> `define-record' is a simple and efficient mechanism (and should stay
> that
> way, if I may say so).

Thanks for the info!

-pete