[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Sun Apr 4 22:37:24 EDT 2010

On Apr  4, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 8:19 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> > I like
> >   (define-struct (a x y) #:super b)
> > much better than the current
> >   (define-struct (a b) (x y))
> > but I'm not sure that it's worth changing.
> The issue I brought up in Boston was the 'heaviness' of the looks of
> our code, which to some extent is caused by long names. Going from
> (make-a 0 1) to (a 0 1) is a good weight loss. The above seems to
> call for trouble for a minor advantage.

I think that there *is* some weight loss here too -- one that is
similar to loss of moving from `mzlib/kw' to the current syntax.
Specifically, there's a whole bunch of struct features that you get
with no need to remember anything more than "use `define-struct'
instead of `struct'".  It's also the same kind of win as "use `for/*'
instead of `let'" that makes the current iterators so good (as opposed
to the srfi or the swindle or the CL syntaxes).

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the dev mailing list.