Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!col.hp.com!news.dtc.hp.com!hplntx!hplntx.hpl.hp.com!gjr
From: gjr@hplgr2.hpl.hp.com (Guillermo (Bill) J. Rozas)
Subject: Re: R5RS?
Sender: news@hpl.hp.com (HPLabs Usenet Login)
Message-ID: <GJR.96Feb22191305@hplgr2.hpl.hp.com>
In-Reply-To: leavens@cs.iastate.edu's message of 22 Feb 96 18:12:04 GMT
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 03:13:05 GMT
Reply-To: gjr@hpl.hp.com
References: <4gc83r$617@news.simplex.nl> <4gfrfi$m7u@camelot.ccs.neu.edu>
	<leavens.824995212@larch> <4gi3p0$kvh@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<leavens.825012724@larch>
Nntp-Posting-Host: hplgr2.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 20

In article <leavens.825012724@larch> leavens@cs.iastate.edu (Gary T. Leavens) writes:

|   On the other hand, it's clearly not *needed* in Scheme.
|   We can, and do, use a macro to do records.  But without opaque types
|   this record is somewhat ineffective...

You are not really asking for opaque types.
You are asking for the ability to create new types disjoint from
previously-existing ones.

Please keep these two issues separate.  The argument among (some of)
the authors hinges on this distinction.

I personally believe that opaque types are a bad idea and very much
against the spirit of Lisp/Scheme.

However, I'm all in favor of new disjoint types (records being the
simplest kind).


