[plt-scheme] naming convention for structure constructor vs. wrapper?

From: Neil W. Van Dyke (neil at neilvandyke.org)
Date: Thu Jul 1 15:20:29 EDT 2004

> Exactly.  The SRFI 9 implementation is a wrapper around
> MAKE-STRUCT-TYPE.  And it's ... gasp ... somewhat portable.

I'm using SRFI-9 right now (for portability).  Worth noting is that
SRFI-9 is pretty impoverished, functionality-wise, compared to

SRFI-9 also has the annoying requirement that one enumerate the
constructor fields in the record type definition.  As an alternative to
the "(<constructor name> <field tag> ...)"  syntax, they could've also
permitted simply "<constructor name>", which would mean a constructor of
one term for each field of the record, in the order listed in the record
type definition.

I wouldn't use SRFI-9 under PLT, except for portability.

Posted on the users mailing list.