[plt-scheme] naming convention for structure constructor vs. wrapper?

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 1 15:28:32 EDT 2004

Yeap, that's my point. Define your own favorite version of 
define-struct. -- Matthias

On Jul 1, 2004, at 3:20 PM, Neil W. Van Dyke wrote:

>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>> Exactly.  The SRFI 9 implementation is a wrapper around
>> MAKE-STRUCT-TYPE.  And it's ... gasp ... somewhat portable.
> I'm using SRFI-9 right now (for portability).  Worth noting is that
> SRFI-9 is pretty impoverished, functionality-wise, compared to
> "make-struct-type".
> SRFI-9 also has the annoying requirement that one enumerate the
> constructor fields in the record type definition.  As an alternative to
> the "(<constructor name> <field tag> ...)"  syntax, they could've also
> permitted simply "<constructor name>", which would mean a constructor 
> of
> one term for each field of the record, in the order listed in the 
> record
> type definition.
> I wouldn't use SRFI-9 under PLT, except for portability.

Posted on the users mailing list.