[Larceny-users] Exporting 'fields'

[will at ccs.neu.edu]

Eduardo Cavazos wrote:
> So... any suggestions for how to write the library portably?

Because the fields identifier is not exported by the
(rnrs records syntactic) library, I believe the best
way to write the library portably is to stick with the
procedural layer.

> Should 'fields' be exported by '(rnrs)'?

In formal comment 267, I noted inconsistencies within the
5.94 draft.  Example:  According to that draft, 'fields'
was to have been exported by (rnrs records syntactic), but
'big' was not to have been exported by (rnrs bytevector):

    http://www.r6rs.org/formal-comments/comment-267.txt

In response to my formal comment, a majority of the editors
decided to fix the inconsistency by not exporting any of
the syntactic keywords.  The 5.94 draft language that had
'fields' being exported from (rnrs records syntactic) was
removed from the report.  According the R6RS documents that
were ratified by about two-thirds of the electorate, the
'fields' keyword is not exported.

In Larceny's lib/R6RS/rnrs/records/syntactic.sls, there is
a FIXME comment asking whether 'fields' should be exported
by (rnrs records syntactic).  That comment may precede the
ratification of the R6RS, and may have motivated my filing
of formal comment 267.

If a clear consensus of R6RS implementors and users have
decided that not exporting syntactic keywords is a bug, then
we will certainly change Larceny's behavior.  As we have said,
we are not committed to conforming to known errors within the
R6RS documents, even when those errors represent deliberate
weakness and restrictions (as in the editors' response to
formal comment 267).

Will