[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> 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.

They are not anywhere close to easily-enough distinguishable that they
should be the same form.  This is just asking for confusion.
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu