On Wed 16 Nov 2016 16:26, "Thompson, David" <dthomps...@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
