suzanne.soy/racket
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

removed resolved commentary from unstable/struct

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Ryan Culpepper 2011-12-17 22:51:46 -07:00
parent 7ef56fbfc5
commit d803e55a5b
1 changed files with 0 additions and 14 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
collects/unstable/struct.rkt
View File

@ -74,17 +74,3 @@
(cond [(and any-opaque? (eq? on-opaque 'return-false))
#f]
[else elems])]))))
;; Eli: Why is there that `false-on-opaque?' business instead of having
;; an interface similar to `struct->vector'? I'd prefer an optional
;; on-opaque value, and have it throw an error if it's opaque and no
;; value is given. Also, `gensym' seems much better to me than a box
;; for a unique value.
;; ryanc: I've never seen any code that wanted the on-opaque filler
;; value except printers, whereas lots of code assumes the struct is
;; fully transparent and wants all of the fields. #:false-on-opaque?
;; also lets this act as a predicate-plus (like member, assoc, etc)
;; for fully-transparent structs.
;; Eli: Your change to `#:on-opaque' looks good enough to me (and leaves room
;; for extension if needed). (BTW, the contract still has `?'.)