• Home
• All tickets
• All wiki pages

Source for ticket #32

cc

changetime

2012-10-05 00:28:20

component

WG1 - Core

description

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types, such
as in SRFI-9, SRFI-99 or the R6RS record system?

id

32

keywords

milestone

owner

alexshinn

priority

major

reporter

alexshinn

resolution

fixed

severity

status

closed

summary

user-defined types

time

2010-02-23 17:06:06

type

defect

Changes

Change at time 2012-10-05 00:28:20

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

16

raw-time

1349371700600833

ticket

32

time

2012-10-05 00:28:20

Change at time 2012-10-05 00:28:20

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

fixed

oldvalue

raw-time

1349371700600833

ticket

32

time

2012-10-05 00:28:20

Change at time 2012-10-05 00:28:20

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

writing

raw-time

1349371700600833

ticket

32

time

2012-10-05 00:28:20

Change at time 2011-02-26 19:57:48

author

alexshinn

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

15

raw-time

1298721468000000

ticket

32

time

2011-02-26 19:57:48

Change at time 2011-02-26 19:57:48

author

alexshinn

field

owner

newvalue

alexshinn

oldvalue

raw-time

1298721468000000

ticket

32

time

2011-02-26 19:57:48

Change at time 2011-02-26 19:57:48

author

alexshinn

field

status

newvalue

writing

oldvalue

decided

raw-time

1298721468000000

ticket

32

time

2011-02-26 19:57:48

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:36

author

alexshinn

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

14

raw-time

1296272976000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:36

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:36

author

alexshinn

field

status

newvalue

decided

oldvalue

assigned

raw-time

1296272976000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:36

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:24

author

alexshinn

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

13

raw-time

1296272964000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:24

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:24

author

alexshinn

field

owner

newvalue

oldvalue

alexshinn

raw-time

1296272964000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:24

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:24

author

alexshinn

field

status

newvalue

assigned

oldvalue

reopened

raw-time

1296272964000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:24

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:08

author

alexshinn

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

12

raw-time

1296272948000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:08

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:08

author

alexshinn

field

resolution

newvalue

oldvalue

fixed

raw-time

1296272948000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:08

Change at time 2011-01-29 11:49:08

author

alexshinn

field

status

newvalue

reopened

oldvalue

closed

raw-time

1296272948000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-29 11:49:08

Change at time 2011-01-24 06:38:08

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

11

raw-time

1295822288000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-24 06:38:08

Change at time 2011-01-24 06:38:08

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

fixed

oldvalue

raw-time

1295822288000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-24 06:38:08

Change at time 2011-01-24 06:38:08

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

reopened

raw-time

1295822288000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-24 06:38:08

Change at time 2011-01-24 06:37:11

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

WG1 voted to accept SRFI 9.

oldvalue

10

raw-time

1295822231000000

ticket

32

time

2011-01-24 06:37:11

Change at time 2010-12-08 12:45:30

author

alexshinn

field

comment

newvalue

reverting procedural/syntactic split

oldvalue

9

raw-time

1291783530000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-08 12:45:30

Change at time 2010-12-08 12:45:30

author

alexshinn

field

summary

newvalue

user-defined types

oldvalue

user-defined types (syntactic)

raw-time

1291783530000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-08 12:45:30

Change at time 2010-12-08 12:45:30

author

alexshinn

field

description

newvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types, such
as in SRFI-9, SRFI-99 or the R6RS record system?

oldvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types using syntax forms, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-57, SRFI-99, or the R6RS record system?

See #110 for procedural records.

raw-time

1291783530000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-08 12:45:30

Change at time 2010-12-06 13:47:05

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

8

raw-time

1291614425000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-06 13:47:05

Change at time 2010-12-06 13:47:05

author

cowan

field

description

newvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types using syntax forms, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-57, SRFI-99, or the R6RS record system?

See #110 for procedural records.

oldvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types using built-in procedures, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-57, SRFI-99, or the R6RS record system?

See #110 for procedural records.

raw-time

1291614425000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-06 13:47:05

Change at time 2010-12-06 13:46:26

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

7

raw-time

1291614386000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-06 13:46:26

Change at time 2010-12-06 13:46:26

author

cowan

field

summary

newvalue

user-defined types (syntactic)

oldvalue

user-defined types

raw-time

1291614386000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-06 13:46:26

Change at time 2010-12-06 13:46:26

author

cowan

field

description

newvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types using built-in procedures, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-57, SRFI-99, or the R6RS record system?

See #110 for procedural records.

oldvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types using built-in procedures, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-57, SRFI-99, or the R6RS record system?

raw-time

1291614386000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-06 13:46:26

Change at time 2010-12-06 13:44:27

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

6

raw-time

1291614267000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-06 13:44:27

Change at time 2010-12-06 13:44:27

author

cowan

field

description

newvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint user-defined types using built-in procedures, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-57, SRFI-99, or the R6RS record system?

oldvalue

Do we support any means of creating disjoint
user-defined types, such as in SRFI-9, SRFI-99
or the R6RS record system?

raw-time

1291614267000000

ticket

32

time

2010-12-06 13:44:27

Change at time 2010-11-14 15:36:58

author

alexshinn

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

5

raw-time

1289720218000000

ticket

32

time

2010-11-14 15:36:58

Change at time 2010-11-14 15:36:58

author

alexshinn

field

summary

newvalue

user-defined types

oldvalue

user-define types

raw-time

1289720218000000

ticket

32

time

2010-11-14 15:36:58

Change at time 2010-10-18 06:17:09

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

oldvalue

4

raw-time

1287357429000000

ticket

32

time

2010-10-18 06:17:09

Change at time 2010-10-18 06:17:09

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

oldvalue

fixed

raw-time

1287357429000000

ticket

32

time

2010-10-18 06:17:09

Change at time 2010-10-18 06:17:09

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

reopened

oldvalue

closed

raw-time

1287357429000000

ticket

32

time

2010-10-18 06:17:09

Change at time 2010-10-18 03:21:45

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

The WG voted to adopt SRFI-9 as part of the core.

oldvalue

3

raw-time

1287346905000000

ticket

32

time

2010-10-18 03:21:45

Change at time 2010-10-18 03:21:45

author

cowan

field

resolution

newvalue

fixed

oldvalue

raw-time

1287346905000000

ticket

32

time

2010-10-18 03:21:45

Change at time 2010-10-18 03:21:45

author

cowan

field

status

newvalue

closed

oldvalue

new

raw-time

1287346905000000

ticket

32

time

2010-10-18 03:21:45

Change at time 2010-03-16 05:34:40

author

kumoyuki

field

comment

newvalue

Yes. Disjoint programmer types are a must. Ideally, the whole type model should be seamless from the set membership predicates through to an effective type algebra. It would be nice to reify some form of type tags/descriptors across all types, as well as a limited pattern matching.

oldvalue

2

raw-time

1268692480000000

ticket

32

time

2010-03-16 05:34:40

Change at time 2010-03-16 05:34:40

author

kumoyuki

field

milestone

newvalue

oldvalue

raw-time

1268692480000000

ticket

32

time

2010-03-16 05:34:40

Change at time 2010-03-01 10:58:43

author

cowan

field

comment

newvalue

I support providing the syntactic portion of SRFI 99 only.  This is a very new SRFI, but it is completely backward compatible with SRFI 9, which is the most popular of all SRFIs (according to the documentation, only Chez among the major implementations does not support it).  The extensions include single inheritance and (optional) implicit naming, along with succinct abbreviations for specifying whether a field is immutable or mutable.

I do not support, I reject, I am altogether against the standardization of R6RS records by WG1. (Or WG2, for that matter.)  R6RS argues that compilers can make them more efficient than SRFI-9-style records, but SRFI 99 refutes this position. 

oldvalue

1

raw-time

1267412323000000

ticket

32

time

2010-03-01 10:58:43