[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1294 by mentioning in the docs that defin
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1294 by mentioning in the docs that define-record-printer is not a definition |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 19:25:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) |
Hi all,
I had another look at #1294 and decided that, while we *could* fake the
record type printer as a definition by wrapping it in a (define) call
with a gensym, I think it doesn't make much sense. This macro really
isn't a definition and we shouldn't treat it like one. The name is a
inconvenient so ideally we'd just change that, but that would be a
breaking API change.
Instead, let's just add a note to the docs. I find it a bit hard to
explain in words, so please take a good look and feel free to suggest
improvements.
Cheers,
Peter
0001-Explain-how-define-record-printer-is-not-a-definitio.patch
Description: Text Data
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1294 by mentioning in the docs that define-record-printer is not a definition,
Peter Bex <=