> [email protected] wrote: > > Can anybody give details about the coops problem? > > From what I can remember, the main problem is not in coops itself, but > in record-variants, that uses low-level ##sys# procedures to define > records and doesn’t use the right tags (which don’t work with > define-record-printer and in turn prevent print-object methods from > working as intended).
Ok, thanks for the information. > > I think with the module prefix, any egg using the low-level structure > procedures have to be updated. > > If I remember correctly, at SaarCHICKEN we pretty much settled on the > solution of using the record name variable containing the correct tag, > which is the most correct and elegant solution, and should fix every > one of these problems, not just `record-instance?` I don't disagree, we just need certain eggs to be in a working state, and I'm trying to assess the situation. If one is using the low-level accessors than he or she should simply know what they're doing. But I consider coops (as limited as it is) as sort of fundamental, so it would be good if we find a solution to make the basic stuff usable. From a quick scan I see no reason why record-variants shouldn't be able to use the tag variable instead of the quoted variant name. I'll investigate... felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
