Re: [Scheme-reports] Do record type NAMEs shadow somhow?

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Andre van Tonder <andre@x> 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@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports