I'm a complete idealist so I'm willing to change anything if we think it is better. You'll have to restrain me to be practical and compatible. =)
Jay On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- 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
