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

From: Doug Orleans (dougo at place.org)
Date: Wed Jun 30 18:45:04 EDT 2004

I often find myself defining a wrapper around a structure constructor,
either a procedure that takes a different number of arguments (e.g. to
provide default values) or a macro that provides some syntactic sugar
for construction (or both).  I want to provide both the wrapper and
the underlying constructor, so I have to come up with a new name for
one or the other.  Is there a naming convention for this pattern?
I've been renaming the `make-foo' constructor to `make-foo*' and then
naming the wrapper `make-foo', but I'm thinking this is an abuse of
the `*' convention (which is already somewhat abused: in the case of
`let*' or `send*' it implies serial repetition, whereas in
`syntax-case*' and `class*' it implies extra arguments).  I was
thinking of using `foo' for the wrapper if it's a macro (and keeping
`make-foo' as the constructor procedure), similar to `generic'
vs. `make-generic', but then this clashes with the syntax binding
produced by `define-struct', which I want to keep so that users can
define subtypes (or use match, etc).  Any other ideas?

--dougo at place.org

Posted on the users mailing list.