Echoing Robby, I'm not totally clear what you mean here. I assume you mean that things like struct-copy, the lazy struct contracts, and struct-out would all have to change. I'm already compatible with struct-copy and I expect we could make those other things compatible too.
If we couldn't, then I don't think we can reasonably call them the same thing and let the users suffer. Jay 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? > > -- 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
