I wouldn't worry too much about make-object and instantiate since they exist essentially only for backwards compatibility.
Robby On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Asumu Takikawa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-02-03 10:50:31 -0500, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote: > > How about > > > > (inst c% 1 2 3) > > (inst c% #:x 1 #:y 2) > > (inst c% 1 2 #:z 3) > > ;; not sure what to do about the last one > > I considered something like this, where the keyword's symbolic name is > just used for the corresponding init arg (so it's backwards compatible) > and you could write > > (class object% > (super-new) > (init-field #:x 5)) > > for example. > > It seems like it could just be more of a mess, though, since it then > offers a fourth way to instantiate classes. It would be nicely > compatible with function syntax though. > > Matthias also suggested in passing a `new` that uses a special marker: > > (new c% [z 3] % 1 2) > (new c% % 1 2 3) > > to make it unambiguous. I'm not sure if this has enough advantages over > `instantiate` (aside from the name) though. > > Cheers, > Asumu > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
