On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > When I try this, I get > > context expected 1 value, received 2 values: () > #<syntax:/home/eli/tmp/sstruct.ss:31:12 ()>
That's what the patch to syntax/parse fixes > One thing that bugs me in all of this is that it's very much like a > function definition, except that with the name outside the parens it > reminds me of `defun'. Perhaps something like changing > > (define-struct a (x #:y [y x])) > > to > > (define-struct (a x #:y [y x])) > > which will look ugly with a super struct, We could do _that_ but drop the super struct syntax and use #:super > so maybe a more drastic jump: > > (define (a x #:y [y x]) #:struct) > > But I like this thing in any case. Blasphemy! I can imagine getting used to it but it looks too weird for me right now. > One more thing that might make sense is to make a few constructors? Right now my code errors with multiple #:constructor, #:predicate, #:mutator, or #:accessor args. They aren't a problem but it's just as easy for the user to put in a (define new-mutator old-mutator). Is what you mean to have different constructor styles? I can see sense in having a constructor that is purely positional and doesn't support the default args and another that has kws and defaults. I'm not sure what other styles could mean. Jay -- Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
