SRFI-9 standardizes a syntax for defining new record types and creating predicate, constructor, and field getter and setter functions. In Guile this is the recommended option to create new record types (see Record Overview). It can be used with:
(use-modules (srfi srfi-9))
Create a new record type, and make various
defines for using
it. This syntax can only occur at the top-level, not nested within
some other form.
type is bound to the record type, which is as per the return
from the core
make-record-type. type also provides the
name for the record, as per
constructor is bound to a function to be called as
(constructor fieldval …) to create a new record of
this type. The arguments are initial values for the fields, one
argument for each field, in the order they appear in the
The fieldnames provide the names for the record fields, as per
record-type-fields etc, and are referred to in the
subsequent accessor/modifier forms.
predicate is bound to a function to be called as
(predicate obj). It returns
according to whether obj is a record of this type.
Each accessor is bound to a function to be called
(accessor record) to retrieve the respective field from a
record. Similarly each modifier is bound to a function to
(modifier record val) to set the respective
field in a record.
An example will illustrate typical usage,
(define-record-type <employee> (make-employee name age salary) employee? (name employee-name) (age employee-age set-employee-age!) (salary employee-salary set-employee-salary!))
This creates a new employee data type, with name, age and salary fields. Accessor functions are created for each field, but no modifier function for the name (the intention in this example being that it’s established only when an employee object is created). These can all then be used as for example,
<employee> ⇒ #<record-type <employee>> (define fred (make-employee "Fred" 45 20000.00)) (employee? fred) ⇒ #t (employee-age fred) ⇒ 45 (set-employee-salary! fred 25000.00) ;; pay rise
The functions created by
define-record-type are ordinary
defines. They can be redefined or
desired, exported from a module, etc.
The SRFI-9 specification explicitly disallows record definitions in a
non-toplevel context, such as inside
lambda body or inside a
let block. However, Guile’s implementation does not enforce that
You may use
set-record-type-printer! to customize the default printing
behavior of records. This is a Guile extension and is not part of SRFI-9. It
is located in the
(srfi srfi-9 gnu) module.
Where type corresponds to the first argument of
and proc is a procedure accepting two arguments, the record to print, and
an output port.
This example prints the employee’s name in brackets, for instance
(set-record-type-printer! <employee> (lambda (record port) (write-char #\[ port) (display (employee-name record) port) (write-char #\] port)))
When writing code in a functional style, it is desirable to never alter the contents of records. For such code, a simple way to return new record instances based on existing ones is highly desirable.
(srfi srfi-9 gnu) module extends SRFI-9 with facilities to
return new record instances based on existing ones, only with one or
more field values changed—functional setters. First, the
define-immutable-record-type works like
define-record-type, except that fields are immutable and setters
are defined as functional setters.
Define type as a new record type, like
However, the record type is made immutable (records may not be
mutated, even with
struct-set!), and any modifier is
defined to be a functional setter—a procedure that returns a new
record instance with the specified field changed, and leaves the
original unchanged (see example below.)
In addition, the generic
may be applied to any SRFI-9 record.
Return a new record of record’s type whose fields are equal to the corresponding fields of record except for the one specified by field.
field must be the name of the getter corresponding to the field of record being “set”. Subsequent sub-fields must be record getters designating sub-fields within that field value to be set (see example below.)
set-field, but can be used to set more than one field at a
time. This expands to code that is more efficient than a series of
To illustrate the use of functional setters, let’s assume these two record type definitions:
(define-record-type <address> (address street city country) address? (street address-street) (city address-city) (country address-country)) (define-immutable-record-type <person> (person age email address) person? (age person-age set-person-age) (email person-email set-person-email) (address person-address set-person-address))
First, note that the
<person> record type definition introduces
named functional setters. These may be used like this:
(define fsf-address (address "Franklin Street" "Boston" "USA")) (define rms (person 30 "firstname.lastname@example.org" fsf-address)) (and (equal? (set-person-age rms 60) (person 60 "email@example.com" fsf-address)) (= (person-age rms) 30)) ⇒ #t
Here, the original
<person> record, to which rms is bound,
is left unchanged.
Now, suppose we want to change both the street and age of rms.
This can be achieved using
(set-fields rms ((person-age) 60) ((person-address address-street) "Temple Place")) ⇒ #<<person> age: 60 email: "firstname.lastname@example.org" address: #<<address> street: "Temple Place" city: "Boston" country: "USA">>
Notice how the above changed two fields of rms, including the
street field of its
address field, in a concise way. Also
set-fields works equally well for types defined with