At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:16:47 -0400, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > Guys, when Matthew was here we discussed the balance of changes and name > changes, and I think all of us agreed that some change is good but easy > migration must be the overriding goal. Keep this in mind please
Yes. I like (define-struct (a x y) #:super b) much better than the current (define-struct (a b) (x y)) but I'm not sure that it's worth changing. Dropping `make-' from the constructor's name probably creates a bigger migration problem. Furthermore, that problem may subsume the problems created by this additional change (i.e., the simple fix of importing the old `define-struct' solves both sets of problems). So, if the revised syntax seems significantly better to everyone, then maybe it would be ok. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
