Re: If records are not sequences, why does aref work on records?

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Drew Adams wrote:
> If the intention is to add a new kind of sequence, for
> example to add a record type and have it be considered
> a type of sequence, then I think it should support all
> sequence features, just like other sequences.
>
> If it does not support everything intended by "sequence"
> then I think we should not present it as a sequence.  In
> particular, it should not be documented as a sequence in
> that case.
>
> As to what a sequence is, one guide is to refer to Common
> Lisp, which carefully defines sequences and sequence
> operations.

So what do you think about the byte-code type, which supports many, but
not all, sequence operations?  Is that a long-standing bug?