On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 3, Matthew Flatt 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? > > How about this: the current `define-struct' and the one with the > lambda-look are (I think) easily distinguishable, so it could be a > single form that does the same thing it does now (and uses `make-foo' > for constructors) when using the existing syntax, and when you use the > new syntax you get the new thing. Assuming that this can work, it > means that even the constructor name change is not happenning for > current code so there's no migration problem.
They are not anywhere close to easily-enough distinguishable that they should be the same form. This is just asking for confusion. -- sam th [email protected] _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
