On 18.08.10 17:22, Ray Racine wrote:
This topic comes up so frequently (schemes structure accessors/mutators) , and has been independently solved in and around the same conceptual solution (a chaining dot syntax) that I've often wondered why Racket would not make such a capability "core" to the language. It seems such an obvious absolutely should (to some) that I'm interested in hearing the counter position of why it should not.
Because what Eduardo did is a quick hack and what you would really like in the core is to make use of Typed Scheme annotations. Maybe a way to reuse the annotations without the type cheking but it may not be convenient without (local) type inference.
It can also be done like it is in Python/Ruby/JavaScript/Smalltalk but this adds quite a big performance hit if not JITed very cleverly (look up tracing JIT compilers for JavaScript).
-- regards, Jakub Piotr Cłapa _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
