[plt-scheme] cost of closure?

On 5/31/07, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Well, I see every thread on this list as a discussion about what should
> > be in v4.0. :)
>
> > Don't hesitate to make specific suggestions, and we'll be sure to bring
> > up big things for discussion --- such as making pairs immutable and
> > using `#module' instead of `(module ...)'.


Will do ;)  I sure would be interested to see if anonymous struct (or tuple)
can be supported in PLT scheme, with support for ctor/dtors.

Thanks,
yinso
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20070531/6dc6b99b/attachment.html>