At Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:37:34 -0400, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > But what's the best way to extend the static struct info API?
Instead of binding a type name (which is also the constructor name) to a `struct-info' structure, Jay's implementation binds it to a subtype of `struct-info' that includes keyword and optional-argument information. I think that's the right general approach. The subtype and accessors could be exposed to other tools, giving `match' enough information to support patterns over constructors with keyword arguments. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
