Robby,<br><br>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.<br> <br>Doug<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Robby Findler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div><div></div><div class="h5">On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Dave Herman <<a href="mailto:dherman@ccs.neu.edu">dherman@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote:<br> >> This probably doesn't help Doug, but here is another way to define the<br> >> function linked above:<br> ><br> > That's neat, thanks! Has struct->vector always worked on non-structs?<br> <br> </div></div>I'm not sure about always, but at some point a while ago, Matthew<br> decided that all values are structs (in the sense that you could have<br> implemented everything with structs and scope, etc even if some of<br> them are implemented in C) and adapted the primitives to make them<br> behave accordingly.<br> <font color="#888888"><br> Robby<br> </font></blockquote></div><br>