[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1294 by mentioning in the docs that d
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1294 by mentioning in the docs that define-record-printer is not a definition
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:45:22 +0200
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:29:58PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> On 2019-06-30 19:25, Peter Bex wrote:
> > I had another look at #1294 and decided that, while we *could* fake the
> > record type printer as a definition by wrapping it in a (define) call
> > with a gensym, I think it doesn't make much sense.
> This actually makes good sense to me. Why don't you like this approach?
Like I said, it isn't a definition. The name is just unfortunate.
> In any case, I think we should try to address the issue one way or the
> other rather than keep a potential pitfall around. If we don't make it a
> "real" (i.e. fake) definition, could we at least introduce a new name
> and encourage its use? Perhaps `set-record-printer!', maybe even with a
> SRFI 17 setter on the type descriptor? Unfortunately, we probably can't
> remove the old name, since it comes from SRFI 99. But again, making it
> an actual definition seems OK to me.
It's not from SRFI-99 (or SRFI-9) AFAICT. We can rename it, but that's
a breaking change. Of course we could keep around the old one during a
> As a sidenote, this issue also applies to `define-reader-ctor', and
> perhaps others; I didn't review the lot.
hm, I didn't think of that one. That's a procedure, which is even
Description: PGP signature