Re: Functional record "setters", a different approach

[Ludovic Courtès]

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>> BTW, why does ‘set-field’ has the record as its 2nd argument instead of
>> 1st (unlike ‘set-fields’)?
>
> Good question.  I followed the syntax of 'set-field' from your original
> patch, but that argument order did not make sense for 'set-fields'.

In the meantime we concurred on IRC that keeping the record as the first
argument in both cases may be best.

>> +The @code{(srfi srfi-9 gnu)} module extends SRFI-9 with facilities to
>> +return new record instances based on existing ones, only with one or
>> +more field values address@hidden setters}.  First, the
>> address@hidden works like
>> address@hidden, except that setters are defined as functional
>> +setters.
>
> "except that the fields are immutable and the setters are ..."

OK.

>> address@hidden {Scheme Syntax} set-field (field sub-fields ...) record value
>> +Return a new record of @var{record}'s type whose fields are equal to
>> +the corresponding fields of @var{record} except for the one specified by
>> address@hidden
>> +
>> address@hidden must be the name of the getter corresponding to the field of
>> address@hidden being ``set''.  Subsequent @var{sub-fields} must be record
>
> This is the first time that "getter" is used, but it has not been made
> clear that you mean what has been called an "accessor" elsewhere in the
> doc.  More generally, there is a confusing mixture of the
> accessor/modifier and getter/setter terminology.  I wonder if it would
> made sense to do some kind of find/replace in this section.

Yeah.  I ended up leaving “getter”, because that’s the term used in the
SRFI-9 node from the beginning.  But I agree we might need to do some
find/replace at some point.

Ludo’.