[R6RS] Implicit naming for record procedures [was: Internal DEFINE vs. macros]

[Michael Sperber]

Thanks for responding on this issue---I see this as a follow-up mail
to my original post.  In the "internal DEFINE" thread, I was mainly
trying to illustrate our differences in background.

dyb at cs.indiana.edu writes:

>> After initially hacking with record-type definition forms that
>> implicitly construct names, I've come to appreciate the added clarity
>> (and, often, flexibility) of always specifying the names explicitly.
>> Subsequently, I wrote a lot of code with PLT's DEFINE-STRUCT (which
>> also chooses the names explicitly), and often found myself frustrated
>> by the lack of flexibility or the loss of grepping ability.  I
>> certainly don't consider the added typing "bloat."
>
> While I prefer the naming regularity inherent in the implicit name
> generation, it's fine with me if we allow the names of the constructor,
> predicate, accessors, and setters to be specified explicitly as long as
> I have the option of having them implicitly generated.  Can we agree
> on that?

Probably.  Moreover, it seems easy to build the implicit-naming
facility on top of the explicit-naming facility.  It's doable but
harder and much more annoying to do the reverse.  (I've done that in
various forms for PLT Scheme.)  I would like to avoid a Common-Lispish
megalomaniac one-size-fits all form with a zillion options.  (Plus, a
different name might let me grep specifically for occurrences of "your
form" :-) )

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla