[plt-scheme] Describe Function

Robby,

I am going to add your variant procedure to the describe collection. Are you
happy with the name 'variant' and the contract (-> any/c symbol?)? What is
the relationship between this and object-name? It seems that for actual
structs they return the same value. Would it make sense to change
object-name to return the same value as variant in those cases where it
(i.e., object-name) returns #f? This would trivially make this functionality
available in #lang scheme, which seems to be a good thing.

Doug

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Dave Herman <dherman at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >> This probably doesn't help Doug, but here is another way to define the
> >> function linked above:
> >
> > That's neat, thanks! Has struct->vector always worked on non-structs?
>
> I'm not sure about always, but at some point a while ago, Matthew
> decided that all values are structs (in the sense that you could have
> implemented everything with structs and scope, etc even if some of
> them are implemented in C) and adapted the primitives to make them
> behave accordingly.
>
> Robby
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20091110/2563eba3/attachment.html>