Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > I believe you are mistaken about that. Looking at both the code and the > expansion of your 'define-immutable-record-type' form above, I see no > evidence that <foo> is bound to anything by it.
I imagine it's actually goops that's doing it. Try using "define-immutable-type <foo>" and then add a (display <<foo>>). That's what prompted my original post, I thought it might be handy to be able to use define-immutable-type (and the other record definitions) to create "normal" goops class names. So that you can have: (define-immutable-type foo ...) (define-method (bar (x <foo>)) ...) instead of only supporting: (define-immutable-type <foo> ...) (define-method (bar (x <<foo>>)) ...) Of course you can always just: (define <foo> <<foo>>) afterward, but that's not quite right. I could just use goops classes, but I was interested in immutability, and at the moment they don't appear to support it. 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
