Re: [Chicken-users] type extension ("inheritance") and define-record

[Pedro Henrique Antunes de Oliveira]

Any reason why that happens?

I really liked that idea.

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Thomas Chust <address@hidden> wrote:
> if the original record was defined in a different module than the
> derived one, setting those binding from the original module to other
> values may not be visible to the original module and other code using
> it, depending on compiler optimization settings used when translating
> the original module.