Re: [Scheme-reports] Do record type NAMEs shadow somhow?
Alex Shinn 25 Apr 2011 06:25 UTC
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andre van Tonder <andre@het.brown.edu> wrote:
> 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?
There's no guarantee this will work. In a module body
the redefinition of <pare> would be an error, in the repl
a good implementation should give you a warning.
--
Alex
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
