>
> 2) (card (line . xs)) has only one field, xs. Of course, you could also
> define it as a normal field which contains a list, but there's some other
> scenarios where I found it more elegant to represent it as a dotted
> argument (like representing s-expressions as a struct).
>
Oh sorry, that wa
Thanks, I'll take a look into the code struct++! I'll probably get lost but
I'm sure I'll learn something.
Answering your questions:
A) What exactly are you trying to do, because I think I've got it but I'm
>>> still fuzzy.
>>>
>>
Structs that allow constructors like any other function, and which
Oops, noted, I have to use 'reply all'. In the benefit of context I'll post
again my reply to Sorawee:
Short summary: I'm trying to have a macro (mymacro oldname newname (fields
...)) that accesses oldname-foo, which contains a list of symbols, and then
define a function that takes (cons oldname-f
Additional thought and self-plug: My struct-plus-plus module creates
structures with full reflection information available, including field
names, contracts, and wrappers. It also supports type checking, data
normalization, default values, and automatically provides both keyword
constructors and
NB: You did a 'reply' to Sorawee instead of to the list as a whole, and
also the same for the email I sent. Probably good to 'reply all' so that
the list gets the full context.
Sorawee offered some good advice on how to do the things you're asking
about and asked relevant questions. I'm wonderi
Instead of creating hola-fields which exists at run-time, you can
(define-syntax
hola ...) to a struct containing the field information at compile-time (it
probably needs to contain other information too). The struct could have
prop:procedure which in this case will be the syntax transformer that
g
6 matches
Mail list logo
