[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

Echoing Robby, I'm not totally clear what you mean here.

I assume you mean that things like struct-copy, the lazy struct
contracts, and struct-out would all have to change. I'm already
compatible with struct-copy and I expect we could make those other
things compatible too.

If we couldn't, then I don't think we can reasonably call them the
same thing and let the users suffer.

Jay

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?
>
>



-- 
Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://teammccarthy.org/jay

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93