It is not what you need. When you create a new structure, the constructor is the thing that makes it... in your example that's "blah". The keyword you mentioned lets you change that name to something like "mother-in-law", so
(struct blah (a b c v) #:constructor-name mother-in-law) (mother-in-law 1 2 3 4) is a valid program. You may find this useful if you want to write your style struct constructor but name it "blah". Jay On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Aidan Gauland <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello fellow racketeers, > > What's the nearest equivalent for a struct to constructors for class > instances? Say I have a struct with a field that should be initialised > to a three-element vector. Right now, I'm just defining a wrapper > make-blah. > > (struct blah (a b c v)) > > (define (make-blah) > (blah 0 0 0 #(0 0 0)) > > This seems fine, but I see that there's a keyword argument to the > `struct' procedure #:constructor-name and I can't quite make sense of > what that does. Is it a low-level thing, or is it exactly what I want? > > Thanks, > Aidan Gauland > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users -- Jay McCarthy <[email protected]> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
