Re: using an SRFI that is not available in Guile

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> skribis:

>> Another approach would be to use ‘define-record-type*’ and record all
>> the default values, including those derived from other fields (just like
>> the default ‘home-directory’ field of <user-account> is derived from
>> ‘name’.)
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>
>
> i think it does, but it would enforce a rather different code
> organization. right now i have a function called APPLY-CONFIG-DEFAULTS
> that is called at the beginning of each entry point to my service
> code. it makes sure that the input config is valid, and returns a new
> config object that has the defaults filled in. it has corss-referenced
> local variables and even some local functions.

[...]

> Ludovic, you're not too happy about the use of extra dependencies
> here, right? if so, can you please advise whether i can proceed with
> giving srfi-189 a try and see what it looks like (i.e. it's not off
> the table to get it accepted)? or do you have any other ideas?

I think I just don’t understand yet how the needs you describe differ
from those of the already available services.

Do you have a preliminary version of the service where you think
existing mechanisms are insufficient?  Sometimes I find it clearer to
discuss concrete cases.

Thanks,
Ludo’.