Re: User-defined record types

[Stefan Monnier]

One more thing: what's up with "record2"?  Which branch should I pay
attention to?  If you don't intend to keep using scratch/record, then
it's better to just replace scratch/record with scratch/record2: you can
rebase/rewrite those `scratch` branches at will.


        Stefan


>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

> We could auto-detect the use of old-style structs (and set the
> compatibility var) when cl-struct-define is called with a nil value of
> the `type` argument.

> [ Of course, this means we need to use a different value for the new
>   `record` format.  ]


>         Stefan