[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

Can we inspect all define- names in our base and consider deleting the  
define- part? Thanks -- Matthias



On Apr 6, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Robby Findler wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu>  
> wrote:
>> So, I'm starting to think that we should leave `define-struct' alone
>> (for backward compatibility) and use a different name for structure
>> types in Racket...
>
> I'm definitely in favor of that, since we go back to the
> trivial-to-port and can have lots of "#lang racket" files in the
> distribution from the get-go.
>
> How about we just drop the word 'define' from 'define-struct'?
>
> We could do something like this:
>
> (struct id maybe-super-id (field ...) option ...)
>
>         maybe-super-id =
>                        | super-id
>
> where it generally looks like define-struct does now but without the
> extra parens in the super case, and it binds the same things that
> define-struct does now, except that 'id' becomes the maker instead of
> 'make-id'?
>
> Given a different name, we have the opportunity to go with a more
> radically different syntax (things like what were proposed here with
> function arguments in the place where "(field ...)" above) but I'm not
> sure that we should be spending our energy on that right now. Instead,
> how about we just make sure we aren't precluding that extension in
> this form and put it off until some time after Racket is officially
> released?
>
> Robby
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev