[racket] Struct fields in struct-info + match enhancements

I'm talking about the transformer binding. Specifically the result of extract-struct-info that both struct-copy and match use in their expansion, which produces a six-element list that satisfies struct-info?.
This six-element list has
optional identifier bound to type descriptor
optional identifier bound to type constructor
optional identifier bound to type predicate
list of field accessor identifiers (optional last value of #f)
list of optional field mutator identifiers
optional super type identifier

I want a 7th element that is the list of field identifiers themselves as given to the struct form or the define-signature form (which I believe produces the expected struct-info transformer binding, so I don't have to actually change define-signature). The expectation is that the field names and the field accessor names correspond 1-to-1.

7 is not 6, thus backwards-incompatible.
I know many programs use positional accessors rather than match on the whole structure of the list, so I imagine adding a 7th element is not very intrusive.
-Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Tobin-Hochstadt" <samth at cs.indiana.edu>
To: "J. Ian Johnson" <ianj at ccs.neu.edu>
Cc: "users" <users at racket-lang.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:42:56 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [racket] Struct fields in struct-info + match enhancements

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:35 PM, J. Ian Johnson <ianj at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> tl;dr if you use struct-info in your programs, I might break them. Please continue reading.
>
> I had a PR a while ago suggesting a change to struct-copy due to its unhygienic nature with fields. It did not go through since there wasn't enough information in the struct-info to separate the struct-name and the field-name. Because struct-info does not have a procedural-only interface, changing it to instead or also hold the individual field identifiers would be backwards incompatible. However, I also expect that struct-info manipulation outside of core Racket is rare.
>
> Is there anyone out there that would be affected by a this change that would be unwilling to make slight modifications to support the new struct-info?
> I ask not because of struct-copy itself, but for an additional enhancement to racket/match: named field selection from structs instead of positional only.
> I'm getting bitten by pervasive refactoring woes whenever I add fields to structs. All of my match patterns must change to have an extra _ somewhere.

I don't understand why this would require a backwards-incompatible
change to struct-info.

Also, this discussion is confusing because it's not clear whether you
mean the dynamic value produced by the `struct-info` procedure, or the
structure type transformer binding. I think you mean the latter, in
which case I expect you could do what you want by implementing
`prop:struct-info` appropriately with an extended structure, and
handling existing values (such as six-element lists) appropriately
with defaults.

Sam