[plt-scheme] with-struct

Well, it should be easy to make that `with-foo' macro detect when the
value expression is really an identifier, and bind names like this:

  (with-posn a
    (printf "<~s,~s>" a.x a.y))

But that's getting too close to something like a real `.' infix syntax
(IIRC, Jens had implemented something like that).



On Oct 21, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> This looks like its worth experimenting with, especially
> if we can figure out how to get it into BSL and ISL.
> 
> I am afraid of the scoping of names that aren't spelled
> out, but hey, we already do this for define-struct. So
> why not experiment.
> 
> -- Matthias
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 2:50 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 21, Jon Rafkind wrote:
> >> Here is a macro that introduces fields of a struct into the current
> >> lexical environment so that instead of saying (foo-x some-foo) you
> >> can just say 'x', similar to pascal's `with' construct.
> >>
> >> I had to resort to string munging to get the original field
> >> names. Is there a better way? I guess the "right" answer is to make
> >> the user pass in the field names themselves but I dislike such
> >> verbosity.
> >
> > The right answer, IMO, and if this was desirable, is to make the
> > struct information include the field names, which would probably not
> > even be too much work.
> >
> > But I don't think that this is a good idea.  If anything, then I think
> > that an extension to `define-struct' works out better.  For example
> > (using a horrible name):
> >
> >  (define-struct foo (n m b) #:mutable #:with-scoper)
> >  (let ([my-foo (make-foo 1 2 3)])
> >    (with-foo my-foo
> >      (set! n 9)
> >      (printf "n is ~a\n" n)))
> >
> > And BTW, that's one of the first fights I had with the then-new module
> > system and Swindle -- I used to have a `with-slots' macro that did
> > just the above dynamically, and it was a bad idea for obvious reasons.
> > I eventually made it accept the identifiers that you want in scope,
> > which seems much cleaner.  You can also think about not wanting all of
> > the bindings for these (for example, don't expose some field that is
> > holding some computed value), or using the same thing to deal with
> > struct-like values (which I implemented in the form of
> > `with-accessors').

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!