[racket] Functional mutators (was: syntax, differently)

On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:52 AM, Todd O'Bryan wrote:

> A couple of stylistic questions that I just have to get off my chest:
> 
> 1. Is there a reason that mutators don't start with the struct name
> like all the other functions introduced by "define-struct"? 

No. (Other than history)


> 2. Just as a personal peeve,

You are entitled to as many peeves as you'd like. The neat thing
is that Racket's identifier syntax is liberal and allows you to 
use dots. I have been doing so for years :-) and I didn't complain 
to the mailing list. 

> .. is it worth considering such a change for HtDP/2e?

I try to stick to Racket tradition in HtDP/2e when I can. 

Even though HtDP/2e is NOT about Racket -- even if some mailings
on certain other mailing lists seem to imply that our goals are 
to Racketeer the world -- I would like to lay the foundation for
the Racket books I want to write some day: HtDC (as in Components)
and HtDS (as in Systems).