[plt-scheme] cost of closure?

On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 07:49 +0800, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Thu, 31 May 2007 16:45:25 -0700, YC wrote:
> > Out of curiosity - does PLT scheme actually use struct as the fundamental
> > compound type, i.e. implement closure/etc on top of struct. 
> 
> The way I think about it, everything is a struct, but some things use a
> special-case representation because they're important enough. (The
> extreme case is a fixnum).
> 
> But an equally valid answer would be: no, not all compound types use
> the same representation as values from a struct constructor.
> 
> > I like structs
> > but have problem with 1) making it anonymous and 2) that make-struct-type is
> > cumbersome if define-struct along doesn't cut it.
> 
> Agreed. A more complete `define-struct' form is high on the list of
> additions for version 4.0.

Speaking of which, check out 'define-struct*' in 
(planet "struct.ss" ("ryanc" "macros.plt" 1)).

Ryan

> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme