Eli seemed to suggest that the confusing version could be set up to only be used for porting purposes (ie to do a manual port with a human cleanup pass later that removed the need for the #lang scheme-based define-struct). Did I get that right?
Robby On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
