Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!dkuhlman
From: dkuhlman@netcom.com (G. David Kuhlman)
Subject: Why no structs?
Message-ID: <dkuhlmanD8zJIs.M34@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 15:11:15 GMT
Lines: 23
Sender: dkuhlman@netcom3.netcom.com

I'm wondering why structs or records (objects with
named fields) are not part of R4RS.  Structs seem like
such a fundamental language feature and they seem so
useful in writing cleaner, easier to understand, and
well organized programs.  So why aren't they in the
language definition.

Scheme has lots of history behind it.  I suspect this
has been fought over many times before.  Can someone
point me to a reference?  What is there about the 
history of Scheme or about the spirit of the language 
definition (R4RS) that structs conflict with?  Is this
just an anti-assignment and anti-objects-that-change-state
thing?  Then why does Scheme have all those standard 
procedures with '!' at the end of the name?

Why do structs have to be an add-on in Scheme?

-- 
----------------------
Dave Kuhlman
Reify, Redwood City, CA
Internet:   dkuhlman@netcom.com
----------------------
