[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Sat Apr 3 21:51:06 EDT 2010

On Apr  3, Matthew Flatt 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?

How about this: the current `define-struct' and the one with the
lambda-look are (I think) easily distinguishable, so it could be a
single form that does the same thing it does now (and uses `make-foo'
for constructors) when using the existing syntax, and when you use the
new syntax you get the new thing.  Assuming that this can work, it
means that even the constructor name change is not happenning for
current code so there's no migration problem.

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

Posted on the dev mailing list.