Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Mark,

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
>>> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>>> I’ll let you see whether/how you can borrow from this in your code, if
>>>> that’s fine with you.
>>>
>>> Okay, will do.
>>
>> Any progress on this?  ;-)
>
> I apologize for dropping on the ball on this.  The primary concern I
> have with my current approach is that 'define-tagged-inlinable' adds
> several more huge bloated syntax-objects to the getter macros.  Of
> course, as usual, this bloat will never be used, but everyone must pay
> for 'datum->syntax' whether they use it or not :-(

Are you concerned about the size of ‘srfi-9.go’, or is there some other
issue at stake?

While I agree that bloating .go files is not satisfying, I would not
consider it a showstopper here.

I suppose the only way to use fewer syntax objects would be to use a
specialize variant of ‘define-tagged-inlinable’, no?  That would make
the code less elegant.

>> I’m happy to help with updating the docs, for instance, if you want.
>
> That would be very helpful, thanks!

OK, I’ll do that when the code is checked in.

Thanks,
Ludo’.