Re: Unintentional conflict in define-immutable-type?

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> The convention is indeed to use <foo> for the RTD.
>
> ...and so (just to clarify) the goops class for a record is supposed to
> be <<foo>> by default, and you'd need to (define <foo> <<foo>>) yourself
> afterward, if you wanted the goops class to appear more conventional?

Yes, I’m afraid.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(srfi srfi-9)
scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(oop goops)
scheme@(guile-user)> (define-record-type <foo>
		       (make-foo x)
		       foo?
		       (x foo-x))
scheme@(guile-user)> <foo>
$2 = #<record-type <foo>>
scheme@(guile-user)> <<foo>>
$3 = #<<class> <<foo>> 1c4b960>
scheme@(guile-user)> (eq? <foo> <<foo>>)
$4 = #f
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The proxy class is created by ‘make_class_from_symbol’ in
libguile/goops.c (in 2.0.)

Ludo’.