At Thu, 13 Jun 2019 20:50:34 -0700, Sorawee Porncharoenwase wrote: > Hence the question: why struct type doesn’t include field names?
It was an early design decision. There didn't seem to be a need to keep field names, and so we left them out for simplicity. That may seem difficult to believe, given that all the functionality that structure types eventually acquired, but that's how it went. I think omitting field names was probably a mistake. Other decisions that were probably mistakes: making structure types opaque by default and including "auto" fields. Those are to point to reconsider in a design for Racket 2. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/5d03b5e7.1c69fb81.813a5.1e92SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
