Apparently I was too specific and pragmatic. Let me try the opposite: Maybe more general than you want. :)
After spending some years with Racket, I've noticed certain things are very popular targets of extension or customization. One is `define`. Another is `struct`. The catch is, these various customizations don't necessarily combine/compose well, if at all. I haven't thought about this very much. My first question would be, could there be something roughly like define-match-expander -- a "define-struct-expander" and a (ouch) "define-define-expander" -- that would help? I don't even know if is a very difficult problem, or, very easy and someone has already figured it out and it just needs more "promotion" and uptake. For example, I believe David Storrs has been working a lot recently on struct-plus-plus. What if someone wanted to use some aspects of that and also of what you're doing, that weren't inherently incompatible. And of course also, as you mentioned, use aspects of plain old `struct`. Is that even possible? How would that even work? -- 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/87zhnd9amk.fsf%40greghendershott.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
