On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:47 PM, Jon Rafkind wrote: > Unrelated, but as long as we are asking for feature requests I would like > some smoother upgrade path between structs and classes. The struct syntax is > very nice for creating objects that store data so I like to use that rather > than starting with classes, but once I decide a struct should be used in an > OO model then I have to rewrite a lot of code. > > I have no formal proposal yet, but if anyone has ideas about it I would be > interested.
Agreed. When we discussed structs, I proposed unifying the two concepts, kind of like in C++. (That was an off-list proposal.) C++ didn't get everything wrong, and this may just be the right way to go. One could go about this by understanding define-struct as a macro that expands into 'light weight' classes. With that I mean classes that could co-exist with our boot sequence. -- Matthias _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
