This site is a static rendering of the Trac instance that was used by R7RS-WG1 for its work on R7RS-small (PDF), which was ratified in 2013. For more information, see Home.

Source for ticket #171

cc


    
changetime

    
2012-10-08 00:06:41

    
component

    
WG1 - Core

    
description

    
What happens if `define-record-type` is specified with two fields that have the same `accessor` identifiers provided for both fields?  More generally, we need to say what happens when any two identifiers are non-unique.

This ticket deals specifically with the situation where two identifiers (accessors or mutators) of two field clauses in a `define-record-type` form  are identical. This is not meant to address field names and what happens or what it means if the field names are symbolically equivalent but lexically distinct.

    
id

    
171

    
keywords

    

    
milestone

    

    
owner

    
alexshinn

    
priority

    
major

    
reporter

    
arcfide

    
resolution

    
fixed

    
severity

    

    
status

    
closed

    
summary

    
Duplicate identifiers in define-record-type

    
time

    
2011-05-05 23:01:44

    
type

    
defect

    
Changes

    
Change at time 2012-10-08 00:06:41

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    

    
oldvalue

    
10

    
raw-time

    
1349629601791391

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2012-10-08 00:06:41

    
Change at time 2012-10-08 00:06:41

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
resolution

    
newvalue

    
fixed

    
oldvalue

    

    
raw-time

    
1349629601791391

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2012-10-08 00:06:41

    
Change at time 2012-10-08 00:06:41

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
status

    
newvalue

    
closed

    
oldvalue

    
writing

    
raw-time

    
1349629601791391

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2012-10-08 00:06:41

    
Change at time 2012-10-08 00:06:35

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
Field names have to be distinct, and so do mutator/accessor names.

    
oldvalue

    
9

    
raw-time

    
1349629595819938

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2012-10-08 00:06:35

    
Change at time 2011-07-10 21:42:58

    
author

    
alexshinn

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    

    
oldvalue

    
8

    
raw-time

    
1310308978000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-07-10 21:42:58

    
Change at time 2011-07-10 21:42:58

    
author

    
alexshinn

    
field

    
status

    
newvalue

    
writing

    
oldvalue

    
decided

    
raw-time

    
1310308978000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-07-10 21:42:58

    
Change at time 2011-07-10 21:41:04

    
author

    
alexshinn

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
We voted to make this an error.

    
oldvalue

    
7

    
raw-time

    
1310308864000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-07-10 21:41:04

    
Change at time 2011-07-10 21:41:04

    
author

    
alexshinn

    
field

    
resolution

    
newvalue

    

    
oldvalue

    

    
raw-time

    
1310308864000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-07-10 21:41:04

    
Change at time 2011-07-10 21:41:04

    
author

    
alexshinn

    
field

    
status

    
newvalue

    
decided

    
oldvalue

    
new

    
raw-time

    
1310308864000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-07-10 21:41:04

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 04:38:29

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
Okay, technically only the ones used in the constructor have to be distinct.

    
oldvalue

    
6

    
raw-time

    
1304631509000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 04:38:29

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 04:31:10

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
''where you have two field names that were the same, which shouldn't cause a problem since they are not used anywhere''

This is '''JUST WRONG''', and has been corrected repeatedly.  Field names are used in the definition of a SRFI 9 constructor.  Consider this:

{{{
  (define-record-type :pare
    (kons x x)
    pare?
    (x kar set-kar!)
    (x kdr))
}}}

Which argument of `kons` is identified with which field?  Field types have to be distinct identifiers (not merely distinct symbols), though technically they don't have to be distinct from accessor/modifier names.

    
oldvalue

    
5

    
raw-time

    
1304631070000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 04:31:10

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 04:14:36

    
author

    
arcfide

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
I have adjusted the language to allow for both accessors and mutators. What I wanted to distinguish was the issue where you want to bind two different procedures to the same name, and where you have two field names that were the same, which shouldn't cause a problem since they are not used anywhere.

    
oldvalue

    
4

    
raw-time

    
1304630076000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 04:14:36

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 04:14:36

    
author

    
arcfide

    
field

    
description

    
newvalue

    
What happens if `define-record-type` is specified with two fields that have the same `accessor` identifiers provided for both fields?  More generally, we need to say what happens when any two identifiers are non-unique.

This ticket deals specifically with the situation where two identifiers (accessors or mutators) of two field clauses in a `define-record-type` form  are identical. This is not meant to address field names and what happens or what it means if the field names are symbolically equivalent but lexically distinct.

    
oldvalue

    
What happens if `define-record-type` is specified with two fields that have the same `accessor` identifiers provided for both fields?  More generally, we need to say what happens when any two identifiers are non-unique.

This ticket deals specifically with the situation where two accessors that are the exact same identifiers are used. This is not meant to address field names and what happens or what it means if the field names are symbolically equivalent but lexically distinct.

    
raw-time

    
1304630076000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 04:14:36

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 04:08:58

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    
Why is this restricted to accessors when its title speaks of identifiers generally?  Surely the same issue arises with conflicts between modifiers, or between an accessor and a modifier.

    
oldvalue

    
3

    
raw-time

    
1304629738000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 04:08:58

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 03:00:45

    
author

    
arcfide

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    

    
oldvalue

    
2

    
raw-time

    
1304625645000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 03:00:45

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 03:00:45

    
author

    
arcfide

    
field

    
description

    
newvalue

    
What happens if `define-record-type` is specified with two fields that have the same `accessor` identifiers provided for both fields?  More generally, we need to say what happens when any two identifiers are non-unique.

This ticket deals specifically with the situation where two accessors that are the exact same identifiers are used. This is not meant to address field names and what happens or what it means if the field names are symbolically equivalent but lexically distinct.

    
oldvalue

    
What happens if `define-record-type` is specified with two fields that have the same `accessor` identifiers provided for both fields?  More generally, we need to say what happens when any two identifiers are non-unique.

    
raw-time

    
1304625645000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 03:00:45

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 01:18:56

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
comment

    
newvalue

    

    
oldvalue

    
1

    
raw-time

    
1304619536000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 01:18:56

    
Change at time 2011-05-06 01:18:56

    
author

    
cowan

    
field

    
description

    
newvalue

    
What happens if `define-record-type` is specified with two fields that have the same `accessor` identifiers provided for both fields?  More generally, we need to say what happens when any two identifiers are non-unique.

    
oldvalue

    
What happens if `define-record-type` is specified with two fields that have the same `accessor` identifiers provided for both fields?

    
raw-time

    
1304619536000000

    
ticket

    
171

    
time

    
2011-05-06 01:18:56