Scheme language standardization process
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