Alex Knauth

Tick isn't the best example, so how about using `on-mouse` to show: ``` racket (check-big-bang (main 0) [(on-mouse 123 50 "button-down") 123]) ``` It would be weird to have `on-mouse`...

It can be closed. `check-big-bang` is not on my priorities at this point

A `struct-tree/lens`-like form could work if you could specify that certain fields of a struct should be instances of another struct, sort of like a type: ``` racket (struct/lens/nested position...

No, the `struct-info`-like thing was what I was talking about. The `struct/lens/nested` form would define a syntax binding with a `struct-info`-like thing that would preserve hygiene just as much as...

What about a generalized `define-nested-lenses` that could work like this: ``` racket (define-nested-lenses [game-orbs game-orbs-lens] [enemys orbs-enemys-lens] [player orbs-player-lens [pos orb-pos-lens] [time orb-time-lens] [shots orb-shots-lens] [deaths orb-deaths-lens] [kills orb-kills-lens]]) ```...

I mean as an alternative to that. (I'm starting to not like the modified `struct/lens` as much because it would require people to write structs in the opposite order to...

I'm not sure that having to duplicate the nesting parts for two fields of the same type is all that bad. It would be good to be able to avoid...

@oflatt I wonder what you think of this?

I was thinking of `(lens-rename lens symbol)` and to be consistent with `(procedure-rename proc symbol)`. Why not expose it though?

I meant "why not", not "why now"