> > p.s. While you "have the hood open", you might also want to do something > similar for `prop:procedure`? >
I would agree that it is A solution to this particular problem with this particular prop. The "passthrough" of some form or other works well and is always open to me as the language maintainer but it amounts to special-casing things and making me the sole arbiter of what makes it into the language and what doesn't. Notice however that nothing about our fancy datatype changes, its interface remains the same, yet user gets a richer type. Which means there ought to be a way to generalize this. To use your analogy I'd like to find out if there's a way to "leave the hood open" just enough or at least let the user do the "passthrough" trick without the need to dismantle the entire car. -- 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/d76a37e0-8c49-4ac1-9aad-bdca3f944441%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
