[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unintentional conflict in define-immutable-type?
|
From: |
Rob Browning |
|
Subject: |
Re: Unintentional conflict in define-immutable-type? |
|
Date: |
Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:33:22 -0600 |
|
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.20.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
> 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.
Ahh, right.
So I suppose if you want <foo> as the goops name, then you really do
just have to choose something other than foo for the constructor within
the module.
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