Weird result on using define-class twice

[Thomas Wawrzinek]

Hi!

Running the following script produces some guile output which confueses me:

;;; script.scm
(use-modules (oop goops))

(define-class <root> ())

(define-class <foo> (<root>)
  (a #:init-value #f #:accessor a-value #:init-keyword #:a-value)
  (b #:init-value #f #:accessor b-value #:init-keyword #:b-value))

(define-class <bar> (<foo>))

(define-method (initialize (o <bar>) . args)
  (set! (a-value o) "BAR")
  (next-method))

(define-generic print)

(define-method (print (o <bar>))
  (display (a-value o)) (newline)
  (display (b-value o)) (newline))

;;; OK, this is very *wrong*!
(define-class <bar> (<root>))

(define baz (make <bar> #:b-value "BAZ"))

(print baz)

$ guile -s script.scm
BAR
#<unknown-immediate 0x69746163>
$ guile -v
Guile 1.5.4
Copyright (c) 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation
Guile may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence;
certain other uses are permitted as well.  For details, see the file
`COPYING', which is included in the Guile distribution.
There is no warranty, to the extent permitted by law.

I'm running on a SuSE Linux 7.2 box ...

I expected that because of the second (define-class <bar> ...) I would get 
some sensible error message (at least about the usage of (a-value ...) in
the (print ...) generic function call).

Maybe I'm mistaken here, I know that GOOPS has a class redefinition 
protocol, but does it go with the define-class macro?

I accidently had such a second (define-class ...) with an already 
used class-name. In a much more complex program than the above, this 
resulted in a segmentation fault (backtrace told me it was GC related).

To avoid such behavior, would it be sensible to have guile indicate 
a wrong usage error or something?

Regards,

                        Thomas