[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Programmer-defined data types

This is a resend - I don't think I have seen this message come through

    Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 15:48:14 PDT
    From: Norman Adams <adams%tekchips.labs.tek.com@relay.cs.net>
    Message-Id: <8908212248.AA18203@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM>
    To: RRRS-Authors@zurich.ai.mit.edu
    Cc: Pavel.pa@xerox.com
    Subject: Programmer-defined data types

    I support Pavel's proposal for records.

    I would prefer that each abstraction-breaking procedure is identified as
    such in its description.  I prefer the term "field" to "slot."  

	-- Should there be a RECORD-COPIER procedure?  Some folks would like to
	have one for performance and convenience..

    I can think of many operations generic to records.  I don't think
    copying deserves to be a special case.


In addition, I concur with Alan's preference for a second argument
(a list of field names) to RECORD-CONSTRUCTOR.