J. Ian Johnson wrote at 08/27/2013 12:18 PM:
You'll want foo-bar-baz the field accessor to be bound to something else that won't be shadowed when you define foo-bar-baz the generic function.
BTW, I've found that the generated struct accessor names very often conflict with names of procedures and of other structs. (Latest example: structs "roomba" and "roomba-protocol", and struct "roomba" has a field named "protocol". We could debate about how things should be composed and named in particular cases, but I think that name collisions are simply going to happen sometimes with current way of doing things.)
I'm recently trying a convention of naming structs (except for exception structs) with a "-struct" suffix (e.g., "roomba-struct", "roomba-protocol-struct"), and then doing "(provide (rename-out ...) ...)" when I want to provide any of the struct-generated names. So far, this convention has worked, because I usually provide only a small fraction of the struct-generated names, and treat it outside the defining module as an ADT rather than a struct. (I also define write procedures for the structs, to maintain this facade, as well as to provide slick info.)
I've been wondering whether it would be more practical for struct-generated names to concatenate with colon (":") as a separator, rather than with minus ("-").
Neil V. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
