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 #400
cc
changetime
2012-08-26 23:20:40
component
WG1 - Core
description
We should define the predicate record? so that it's possible to distinguish instances of record types from all other types. It should not be necessary to enumerate all record type predicates in order to determine whether an object is an instance of a record.
This is Alexey Radul's suggestion.
id
400
keywords
milestone
owner
arthur
priority
major
reporter
aag
resolution
wontfix
severity
status
closed
summary
Define record? .
time
2012-06-11 07:23:49
type
enhancement
Changes
Change at time 2012-08-26 23:20:40
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
5
raw-time
1345998040967682
ticket
400
time
2012-08-26 23:20:40
Change at time 2012-08-26 23:20:40
author
cowan
field
resolution
newvalue
wontfix
oldvalue
raw-time
1345998040967682
ticket
400
time
2012-08-26 23:20:40
Change at time 2012-08-26 23:20:40
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
closed
oldvalue
decided
raw-time
1345998040967682
ticket
400
time
2012-08-26 23:20:40
Change at time 2012-08-26 23:20:33
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
oldvalue
4
raw-time
1345998033227976
ticket
400
time
2012-08-26 23:20:33
Change at time 2012-08-26 23:20:33
author
cowan
field
status
newvalue
decided
oldvalue
new
raw-time
1345998033227976
ticket
400
time
2012-08-26 23:20:33
Change at time 2012-08-25 00:40:51
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
WG1 decided not to add `record?`.
oldvalue
3
raw-time
1345830051154273
ticket
400
time
2012-08-25 00:40:51
Change at time 2012-06-13 04:41:41
author
aag
field
comment
newvalue
See follow-up discussion on the mailing list.
oldvalue
2
raw-time
1339537301430953
ticket
400
time
2012-06-13 04:41:41
Change at time 2012-06-11 13:35:39
author
cowan
field
comment
newvalue
In R6RS there is the concept of an "opaque record type". Given an instance of such a type, it is not possible to recover the type descriptor. This also means that `record?` won't return `#t` on it. Such record types can be used to implement things like ports, certain kinds of numbers, and so on. They are also provided as an optional extension to SRFI 99 records.
I'm reluctant to disallow such record types by requiring `record?` to respond `#t` on all record instances.
oldvalue
1
raw-time
1339396539957846
ticket
400
time
2012-06-11 13:35:39