[racket] Generics and modules

J. Ian Johnson writes:

 > You'll want foo-bar-baz the field accessor to be bound to something
 > else that won't be shadowed when you define foo-bar-baz the generic
 > function. Your define-generics likely is not in the same scope as
 > the struct foo-bar definition, since

Right.

 > Leads to a syntax error that there is a duplicate definition of
 > x. Since #:methods reintroduces the names from bar's definition
 > context into the following [...] scope, you're hosed for using the
 > name. However, you can use unsafe-struct-ref

That's an interesting option. I am not very fond of having the word
"unsafe" in my code, but it does get the job done.


Neil Van Dyke writes:

 > BTW, I've found that the generated struct accessor names very often 
 > conflict with names of procedures and of other structs.  (Latest 

Me too.

 > I'm recently trying a convention of naming structs (except for exception 
 > structs) with a "-struct" suffix (e.g., "roomba-struct", 
 > "roomba-protocol-struct"), and then doing "(provide (rename-out ...) 

Good idea, I'll try it out on my code.

 > I've been wondering whether it would be more practical for 
 > struct-generated names to concatenate with colon (":") as a separator, 
 > rather than with minus ("-").

My first idea would be a dot (used in many other languages), or a slash
(like in Unix path names, and also in Racket module names).

Konrad.