[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: opaque types for conditions
> Probably the use of the word "opaque" is just a red herring here.
> I used it only to mean "not a list whose car is a magic token" and
> "not a function which has to be called with just the right arguments".
> I do think the language should have opaque types.
> But for this purpose, if you want, "unique" is fine.
Request for clarification: I thought we had all accepted the RECORD
proposal (by JAR et al?) some time ago for inclusion in R5RS. This
provides user-defined unique new data types. It can also provide fully
opaque types if no accessors are provided.
So is this issue a non-issue given RECORDs or am I misunderstanding
something? Or have I mis-remembered the status of the RECORD proposal?
...just hoping to relieve some of the tension... I'm very pleased to see
constructive debate on this list again... joy!