Oh-- maybe you're saying that this form is going to be _define_ing _struct_s, no matter what we call it, so it will be hard to find a reasonable other name?
Robby On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Robby Findler <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:30:57 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: >>> Does it make sense to give this revision to define-struct a different >>> name and keep the same old define-struct around from scheme/base? >> >> Lots of other forms and procedures have `struct' in the name, so if we >> just change `struct' to something else, we'd either have a mismatch or >> have many other changes. >> >> Or did you have a different kind of change in mind? > > I think I must be missing something. I have understood the > define-struct changes to be ones that would be compatible with the > original define-struct, but to have more features & a better syntax. > Is that not right? > > Robby > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
