[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

Yes. I mean that if the name is changed to `define-X' for some `X',
then either we have a mismatch between `define-X' and `struct-copy',
`struct-info', `struct->vector', etc., or we have to change all those
other names to use `X' instead of `struct'.

I'm not sure that a mismatch is so terrible, but I'm inclined to stick
with `define-struct'.

At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 18:50:16 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> 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
> >