* bug#24955: defining a record type does not also define a GOOPS class in Guile 2.1
@ 2016-11-16 15:26 Thompson, David
2017-01-09 21:43 ` Andy Wingo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Thompson, David @ 2016-11-16 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 24955
Hello,
It used to be, in Guile 2.0, that defining a record type <foo> would
also, in an unhygienic manner, define the GOOPS class <<foo>> for use
with generic methods. However, in Guile 2.1, this does not happen.
Example:
(use-modules (srfi srfi-9)
(oop goops))
(define-record-type <foo>
(make-foo bar)
foo?
(bar foo-bar))
<<foo>> ;; Unbound variable: <<foo>>
Was this an intentional breaking change? I do find it weird that a
variable binding is magically defined, but I still would like some way
to access the class wrapper for a record type without doing something
hacky like:
(define <<foo>> (class-of (make-foo 'bar)))
Thanks,
- Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* bug#24955: defining a record type does not also define a GOOPS class in Guile 2.1
2016-11-16 15:26 bug#24955: defining a record type does not also define a GOOPS class in Guile 2.1 Thompson, David
@ 2017-01-09 21:43 ` Andy Wingo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andy Wingo @ 2017-01-09 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thompson, David; +Cc: 24955-done
On Wed 16 Nov 2016 16:26, "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> writes:
> Hello,
>
> It used to be, in Guile 2.0, that defining a record type <foo> would
> also, in an unhygienic manner, define the GOOPS class <<foo>> for use
> with generic methods. However, in Guile 2.1, this does not happen.
> Example:
>
> (use-modules (srfi srfi-9)
> (oop goops))
>
> (define-record-type <foo>
> (make-foo bar)
> foo?
> (bar foo-bar))
>
> <<foo>> ;; Unbound variable: <<foo>>
>
> Was this an intentional breaking change? I do find it weird that a
> variable binding is magically defined, but I still would like some way
> to access the class wrapper for a record type without doing something
> hacky like:
>
> (define <<foo>> (class-of (make-foo 'bar)))
See NEWS:
** Defining a SMOB or port type no longer mucks exports of `(oop goops)'
It used to be that defining a SMOB or port type added an export to
GOOPS, for the wrapper class of the smob type. This violated
modularity, though, so we have removed this behavior.
I think in the future <foo> should be classy already as a kind of
primitive class -- (class-of (make-foo ...)) should eq? <foo>. That
doesn't happen now yet though. Closing as not a bug unless you have
really strong opinions here.
A
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-09 21:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-11-16 15:26 bug#24955: defining a record type does not also define a GOOPS class in Guile 2.1 Thompson, David
2017-01-09 21:43 ` Andy Wingo
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).