[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 21:51:06 -0400, Eli Barzilay 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.

Cute, but I agree with others that it's likely too confusing.