Gregory's Server
@dpk oh, sweet! Yeah, before I switched to Scheme I did most of my hobby projects in Haskell, and their immutable records are great! So easy to reason about. So I am definitely in favor of that feature. Also, I believe it is easier to optimize as the SSA pass of the compiler can more easily reason about immutable records, but I am not a compiler expert by any stretch of the imagination.
|
2 comments
 I wrote a syntax-rules macro to define a record type with updaters instead of mutators: https://gitlab.com/dpk/presrfis/-/blob/master/define-value-type.scm |
@ramin_hal9001 Well, as things stand, you can already have immutable records – just don’t have any mutable fields. (This is actually the default in R6 define-record-type.)
But there’s no automatic way to create functional field setting procedures like there is to create field mutator procedures. You can have them, but you have to define them yourself.