Re: two bugs and a buggy patch

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

Marco Vezzoli <marco.vezzoli@st.com> writes:

> I read the SRFI9; I find it really useful.
> I tried to use the first two macros with kawa 1.6.66 and they worked
> well.
> Do you think kawa need some adaptation / optimization of the sample
> code?
> Or you simply want to add it in the next snapshot?

Well, I don't want to use an implementation on top of the record
feature since that less efficient than it can be.  Specifically, I
want to generate the new class at compile time, not run-time, and I
don't want to use reflection to implement it.  That is the field
accessor and modifier functions should be compiler-generated Procedure
that do not use reflection.  That would make them much faster.

I think the thing to do is get define-class working, and
then impement SRFI-19 as macros that expand to define-class.

> I don't find this module in the SLib release I use at work (2c6);
> strangely enough they appear both in the change log and in a patch file
> packed in the same tarball.

Ah.  I now notice in the Slib ChangeLog:

Thu Jul 18 17:37:14 1996  Aubrey Jaffer  <jaffer@jacal.bertronics>

        * rbtest.scm rbtree.scm: removed for lack of copying permissions.

I don't think we want to include in Kawa in that case.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/