chicken-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Chicken-users] SRFI-9 vs. define-record vs. (copy)


From: tonyg
Subject: [Chicken-users] SRFI-9 vs. define-record vs. (copy)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:13:20 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

Currently SRFI-9 records and (define-record) records are
disjoint. Could they be made the same? I'd really love to have
(define-record-printer) for SRFI-9 records :-)

On the topic of records, the (copy) function is *too* deep - it copies
the record type as well as the record value!

        (define-record x y)
        (define a (make-x 1))
        (define b (copy a))

        a ==> #<x>
        b ==> #<x>      ;; but it's a *different* x

        (x-y a) ==> 1
        (x-y b) ==> error

        (x? a) ==> #t
        (x? b) ==> #f

Any suggestions on how this might be avoided?

Tony
-- 
>From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must
consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides.
        - Confucius, "The Great Learning"




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]