Re: Generative record types

[Norman Adams <adams@openmarket.com>]

Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
    >			    Unfortunately the proposal that you make doesn't
    > immediately seem very different to me from the `make-record-type' proposal
    > that we have -almost- agreed to on several previous occasions.
    
    Chances are there are no substantive differences, only (mostly)
    syntactic ones. 

Yes.  It looks similar to the record proposal that has been on and off
the table since 1987.
   
    My
    impression, gleaned from sampling past discussions, is that a lot of
    discussion centered around issues like opacity.  We tried to
    explicitly deflect attention from that.

As I recall, permitting opacity is considered a non-starter by a subset
of rrrs-author participants.  Leaving opacity out of the spec doesn't
satisfy this group.

I also recall a discussion that went something like:  "Record packages
are often closely related to object systems, so we should wait until we
understand what to do for an object system."

I think the conflicting goals of the rrrs-authors participants, the size
of the group, and the standing requirement for unanimity account for our
nearly continuous deadlock on nearly every topic, including proposals to
fix the process.

I'm hoping the extended constructive discussion on exceptions is
indicative of a change in this pathology.

-Norman