IRC channel logs

***wleslie_ is now known as wleslie

<paroneayea>dumb question maybe, but is there some kind of (type foo)

<mark_weaver>paroneayea: you want to know the type of some arbitrary object?

<mark_weaver>in scheme, the usual way is to ask whether an object is of a particular type, rather than asking what "the type" is, partly because an object may in general have more than one type.

<mark_weaver>this is most notable in the case of numbers, where all integers are rational, all rationals are real, all reals are complex, and all complex are numbers.

<mark_weaver>so 1 is a member of all of those types.

<mark_weaver>s/all complex/all complex numbers/

<mark_weaver>GOOPS has a 'class-of' procedure, but I wonder what you hope to use it for and whether there's a better way.

<paroneayea>mark_weaver: well, mainly, a function returned something

<paroneayea>and I wanted to see what type it was :)

<nalaginrut>morning guilers~

<paroneayea>hello nalaginrut

<nalaginrut>heya

<wingo>moin

<civodul>Hello Guilers!

<davexunit>defining record types can get real repetitive.

<davexunit>I usually want something simple that will make the getters/setters for me without having to explicitly name them

<davexunit>(define-simple-record-type foo (bar baz))

<davexunit>I can't find an existing macro in Guile that does something along these lines.

<taylanub>I was going to recommend SRFI-99, then realized Guile doesn't have it :(

*davexunit looks it up

<taylanub>I haven't looked that much into it, but I've looked into R6RS records, was quite impressed, and SRFI-99 is basically a backwards-compatible cleanup/polish of them

<taylanub>R6RS records seemed to be very sophisticated, in a good way IMO, just with some key flaws, and ostensibly too much complexity, which AFAIK was one of the reasons some people disliked R6RS. it's pretty sad. I hope SRFI-99 will make everyone happy One Day.

<davexunit>apparently racket has a nice 'struct' form that does what I want.

<davexunit>I guess I'll just write a syntax-case macro over define-record-type

<civodul>davexunit: what you want is unhygienic! :-)

<civodul>though i recall samth saying that in this case, it's acceptable

<davexunit>why is it unhygienic?

<davexunit>it would just be a syntax-case macro, I think...

<davexunit>please educate me :)

<civodul>because in your example you will generate 'foo-bar' and 'foo-baz'

<civodul>but these identifiers don't appear in the source

<davexunit>okay.

<davexunit>I guess I should note that define-record-type currently does some magic like this where it defines a GOOPS class

<davexunit>or rather, *something* defines a GOOPS class in response to creating a new record type