Nikita Karetnikov <nik...@karetnikov.org> skribis: >> The suggestion I made was in favor of using a single >> ‘make-gnu-record-descriptor’ call with all the field values (as opposed >> to creating the record with all fields set to #f, and then using >> ‘setters’ to change them to their actual value.) > > OK. But why functional setters, then?
They’re great, but here you know all the field values, so it’s more natural and more efficient to make a single call to the constructor. > Can't I use 'define-record-type'? You can if you end up not using the “syntactic constructor” with named fields (as was the case in my example). Ludo’.
