On 2011-07-28, at 12:43 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > 7 minutes ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote: >> >> On Jul 28, 2011, at 2:10 PM, Tom McNulty wrote: >> >>> I was hoping that I could locate the getter (and setter) with just >>> the field and structure type but that information doesn't seem to >>> be possible. > > Ah, you're right. > > >> I don't understand your request but if you are giving me the >> structure name and the structure field, you can write a >> context-sensitive macro:
Matthias: Sorry I worded that poorly. I was looking to retrieve the accessors and mutators from the structure and field names in the macro, but that information is not retained. > > That's how Tom started, and I didn't follow the intention of using the > field name and suggested using the struct info. > > But the real thing that you (Tom) are fighting with is trying to use > field names, where the struct info is disregarding that and keeps > around just the getter and setter names. Other than possibly better error messages, I'm not sure then that the struct-info approach provides much (any?) benefit; for it still relies on knowing the accessor name. It also seems that accessors/mutators that do not follow the usual [set-]struct-field naming seem to be a rarity (certainly in my code). > Looks to me like a better > approach would be to use the getter names instead -- possibly with a > macro that makes more convenient getters? I thought about this approaching, using something similar to the key-word structures here, http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2010-December/043340.html but decided it'd be better to make something that works with vanilla structs. Thanks, - Tom. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
