Re: Unintentional conflict in define-immutable-type?

[Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> This is expected.  The macro, like that of SRFI-9, creates one binding
> for the record-type descriptor, one for the constructor, one for the
> predicate, and one for the accessor.  Since the first two have the
> same name, it Doesn’t Work.

OK, so I just wasn't paying close enough attention.

If I really do want to have <foo> for the goops class, and don't want to
patch things up afterward, I could also just rename the default
constructor, i.e.:

  (use-modules (srfi srfi-9 gnu))
  (use-modules (oop goops))

  (define-immutable-record-type foo
    (make-foo x)
    foo?
    (x x))

  (display foo) (newline)
  (display <foo>) (newline)

Whether or not that's a good idea is of course a different question...

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