From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Unintentional conflict in define-immutable-type? Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:24:08 -0600 Message-ID: <87610ncf0n.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> References: <87610yfwes.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87oaepiuyu.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1448659467 4670 80.91.229.3 (27 Nov 2015 21:24:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:24:27 +0000 (UTC) To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Nov 27 22:24:18 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a2QV5-0007Zo-4J for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 22:24:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58562 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2QV7-0003LM-SO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:24:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39706) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2QV4-0003Hz-BI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:24:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2QV0-0001V0-An for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:24:14 -0500 Original-Received: from defaultvalue.org ([70.85.129.156]:56481) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a2QV0-0001Uw-69; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 16:24:10 -0500 Original-Received: from trouble.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: rlb@defaultvalue.org) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 810262000C; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:24:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by trouble.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 211DA14E062; Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:24:08 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: <87oaepiuyu.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 70.85.129.156 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18070 Archived-At: Ludovic Court=C3=A8s 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=E2=80=99t Work. OK, so I just wasn't paying close enough attention. If I really do want to have 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 ) (newline) Whether or not that's a good idea is of course a different question... Thanks --=20 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