Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> That bit sounds fair, I it in.  I think the rest labours the point a
> little.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

> Hopefully seeing init-thunk and init-form described is
> enough.

I think the address@hidden across all new instances of the class}' is the
least I would expect from the documentation.  Then perhaps the example
that follows is just too much, too trivial.  Is it what you mean?

Thanks,
Ludovic.