4 ms·
Odd how he dislikes both not having a way to create disjoint types and the way provided to create disjoint types (define-record-type).
by oddthink 15y ago
Odd how he dislikes both not having a way to create disjoint types and the way provided to create disjoint types (define-record-type).
- noelwelsh 15y agoIndeed, and what could be a truer reflection of the Scheme community than this ;-)
- ruv 15y agoLISP and Buddha-nature... ;)
- gchpaco 15y agoThe problem, I think, is that he wants a low level tool for generating disjoint types (not satisfied by define-record-type, which is not required to be disjoint from vectors or conses or what have you). This would give you the ability to have enums, ML style discriminated unions, simple records, etc. without necessarily requiring that each and every one of them be in the small language. That said from a practical point of view some sort of record type is long overdue.
- oddthink 15y agoAs of the current draft, define-record-type is disjoint. They're "distinct from all existing types" and explicitly mentioned as being disjoint in the notes.
- gchpaco 15y agoAh! Well, that certainly improves things; either I misread the draft or that language wasn't there when I looked.