In the following sequence:

(define-record-type <pare>
    (kons x y)
    pare?
    (x kar set-kar!)
    (y kdr))

(define-record-type <pare>
    (cons x y)
    pair?
    (x car set-car!)
    (y cdr))

(kar (kons 1 2))   ;; WILL THIS STILL WORK?

In other words, will the second definition of <pare> (with different accessors)
in the same scope mess up the first record type definition?

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports