[racket] syntax, differently

On 18.08.10 17:22, Ray Racine wrote:
> This topic comes up so frequently (schemes structure accessors/mutators)
> , and has been independently solved in and around the same conceptual
> solution (a chaining dot syntax) that I've often wondered why Racket
> would not make such a capability "core" to the language.  It seems such
> an obvious absolutely should (to some) that I'm interested in hearing
> the counter position of why it should not.

Because what Eduardo did is a quick hack and what you would really like 
in the core is to make use of Typed Scheme annotations. Maybe a way to 
reuse the annotations without the type cheking but it may not be 
convenient without (local) type inference.

It can also be done like it is in Python/Ruby/JavaScript/Smalltalk but 
this adds quite a big performance hit if not JITed very cleverly (look 
up tracing JIT compilers for JavaScript).

-- 
regards,
Jakub Piotr Cłapa