Yes. I mean that if the name is changed to `define-X' for some `X', then either we have a mismatch between `define-X' and `struct-copy', `struct-info', `struct->vector', etc., or we have to change all those other names to use `X' instead of `struct'.
I'm not sure that a mismatch is so terrible, but I'm inclined to stick with `define-struct'. At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:50:16 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: > 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
