Re: [PATCH] Don't mix definitions and expressions in SRFI-9

[Andy Wingo]

On Sun 06 Mar 2011 23:26, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andreas Rottmann <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The expansion of `define-inlinable' contained an expression, which made
>> SRFI-9's `define-record-type' fail in non-toplevel contexts ("definition
>> used in expression context").
>
> SRFI-9 says “Record-type definitions may only occur at top-level”, and
> I’m inclined to stick to it.  If we diverge, then people could write
> code thinking it’s portable SRFI-9 code while it’s not.

Does anyone actually care about this?  We provide many compatible
extensions to standard interfaces.  It seems like this would be an
"unnecessary restriction which makes `let-record-type' seem necessary".
Especially given that the patch actually removes an unused line :)

Regards,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/