Re: Unintentional conflict in define-immutable-type?

[Rob Browning]

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:

> I believe you are mistaken about that.  Looking at both the code and the
> expansion of your 'define-immutable-record-type' form above, I see no
> evidence that <foo> is bound to anything by it.

I imagine it's actually goops that's doing it.

Try using "define-immutable-type <foo>" and then add a (display
<<foo>>).

That's what prompted my original post, I thought it might be handy to be
able to use define-immutable-type (and the other record definitions) to
create "normal" goops class names.

So that you can have:

  (define-immutable-type foo ...)
  (define-method (bar (x <foo>)) ...)

instead of only supporting:

  (define-immutable-type <foo> ...)
  (define-method (bar (x <<foo>>)) ...)

Of course you can always just:

  (define <foo> <<foo>>)

afterward, but that's not quite right.

I could just use goops classes, but I was interested in immutability,
and at the moment they don't appear to support it.

Thanks
-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4