Re: Changing a cl-defstruct definition in a published package

[Clément Pit-Claudel]

On 2018-07-13 13:38, Basil L. Contovounesios wrote:
> If cl-defstructs boil down to an array in disguise (I don't know because
> I've never looked into them), would appending (as opposed to prepending
> or inserting) new slots maintain backward compatibility?

I don't think so, unfortunately, because of the second issue I mentioned at the 
end of my email: constructors called on B's side have been compiled down to 
array initializations, which means that even if the new constructor for my 
defstruct has a default value set, B will still pass me arrays that are one 
element too short :/