[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 20:54:56 -0400
Scheme doesn't yet have any way to print record types specially; all you get is whatever the implementation chooses to supply. Consequently, there is nothing like define-report-printer in any records SRFI.
On 2019-07-12 10:45, Peter Bex wrote:
> > 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
> deprecation phase.
Oh, indeed. The srfi-99 egg includes it so I assumed it came from the
SRFI, but that must just be for compatibility with CHICKEN.
Chicken-hackers mailing list