Re: Unintentional conflict in define-immutable-type?

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Rob,

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> This crashes in 2.0:
>
>   (use-modules (srfi srfi-9 gnu))
>
>   (define-immutable-record-type foo
>     (foo x)
>     foo?
>     (x x))
>
>   (foo 1)
>
> like this:
>
>   foo.scm:10:9: In procedure #<procedure 131fd00 ()>:
>   foo.scm:10:9: In procedure make-struct: Wrong type argument in position 1: 
> #<procedure %foo-procedure (x)>

The problem is that (define-immutable-record-type foo ...) binds 'foo'
to the record-type-descriptor (rtd), and you are also binding 'foo' to
the constructor.  I suppose we should try to improve the error message
in cases like this.

> Changing the type name to <foo> (or even xfoo) fixes the conflict,

Right.

> even though "define-immutable-type foo" actually creates a binding for
> <foo>, not foo.

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.

     Regards,
       Mark