Rob Browning <r...@defaultvalue.org> writes:
> 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>>).
I did, and I found that <<foo>> was unbound. However, I see now that if
GOOPS is loaded, <<foo>> does indeed become bound to a class. I find
this a bit unsettling to be honest, but I stand corrected. Thanks :)
> 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>)) ...)
You can do this if you pick a different name for the constructor.
However, I agree that it would be nice to allow the class to be named
<foo> and the constructor to be named foo. The first idea that comes to
mind is to provide an optional extension to the 'define-record-type' and
'define-immutable-record-type' syntax to explicitly give the name of the
class. Then you could name the RTD something like :foo and still name
the class <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 guess that wouldn't work. After (define-immutable-type <foo> ...),
it's important that <foo> remain bound to the RTD in the module where
'define-immutable-type' was evaluated. The other procedures defined by
'define-immutable-type' refer to <foo> and rely on it being bound to the
RTD.
Mark
