At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 21:51:06 -0400, Eli Barzilay 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.
Cute, but I agree with others that it's likely too confusing. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
