[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

Oh-- maybe you're saying that this form is going to be _define_ing
_struct_s, no matter what we call it, so it will be hard to find a
reasonable other name?

Robby

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:30:57 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
>>> Does it make sense to give this revision to define-struct a different
>>> name and keep the same old define-struct around from scheme/base?
>>
>> Lots of other forms and procedures have `struct' in the name, so if we
>> just change `struct' to something else, we'd either have a mismatch or
>> have many other changes.
>>
>> Or did you have a different kind of change in mind?
>
> I think I must be missing something. I have understood the
> define-struct changes to be ones that would be compatible with the
> original define-struct, but to have more features & a better syntax.
> Is that not right?
>
> Robby
>