From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marko Rauhamaa Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: A couple of questions about goops method parameters Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 01:26:27 +0300 Message-ID: <874mwliu0c.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> References: <1409905923.9245.5.camel@Renee-desktop.suse> <871trpridm.fsf@izanagi.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87lhpxg6ta.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87tx4liyfd.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87ha0lg2ep.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1409956024 7641 80.91.229.3 (5 Sep 2014 22:27:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 22:27:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Carlos Pita , David Thompson , "guile-user@gnu.org" To: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 06 00:26:53 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ1y0-0001oD-QO for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:26:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60454 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ1y0-0004oq-D1 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:26:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60792) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ1xm-0004nb-7B for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:26:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ1xf-0005ie-Jb for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:26:38 -0400 Original-Received: from pacujo.net ([83.150.83.132]:38182) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XQ1xf-0005iY-BH for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2014 18:26:31 -0400 Original-Received: from elektro.pacujo.net (192.168.1.200) by elektro.pacujo.net; Sat, 6 Sep 2014 01:26:27 +0300 Original-Received: by elektro.pacujo.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 6 Sep 2014 01:26:27 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87ha0lg2ep.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> (Taylan Ulrich Bayirli's message of "Fri, 05 Sep 2014 23:53:18 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 83.150.83.132 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:11473 Archived-At: Taylan Ulrich Bayirli/Kammer : > Though after pondering a bit I realized that it indeed seems impossible > to compile "(.bar foo)" (could result from "foo[.bar]" via SRFI-105) > into the correct memory offset, if there are multiple record types each > with a '.bar' field, because it's not statically known which record type > 'foo' has. Maybe that's exactly what you meant. Yes. It is amusing, though, that C originally suffered from the same issue: the struct field offsets were global linker objects. That's why to this day, unix/linux C structs have ugly field prefixes: struct timeval { time_t tv_sec; suseconds_t tv_usec; }; struct timezone { int tz_minuteswest; int tz_dsttime; }; struct linger { int l_onoff; int l_linger; }; struct sockaddr_in { sa_family_t sin_family; in_port_t sin_port; struct in_addr sin_addr; }; struct in_addr { uint32_t s_addr; }; struct iovec { void *iov_base; size_t iov_len; }; and so on... Marko