> BTW, (; This nm) is a kind of tautology. Could simply be (: nm) > Ah, I was under the mistaken impression that rels were always fetched with ; by convention if nothing else.
However, pushing the class +Admin into the +User object results > in that object having two primary entity classes. > Yes, totally unnecessary as the goal here is to simply add/overwrite some methods to/in +User. I forgot it there after my initial test to see if the db +Admin call would automatically make it an +Admin object or not. Ah, now I know what your problem is. The 'push' above was probably not > committed, right? So the second 'db' call returned the old object > (without the additional class). > Wow, being able to set!> permanently like that is great, exactly what I was looking for, thanks for that! But pretend I'd like to go down the prefix route instead. How would I do that practically so that I'd be able to use (extra)? I get the object with (setq *Admin (db 'id '+User 3)) and how do I get +Admin to be a prefix class to the right of +User in the *Admin instance? As far as I can see this won't work: (db 'id '(+User +Admin) 3) will it? On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Alexander Burger <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Henrik, > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 06:45:08PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote: > > > (push *Admin '+Admin) > > ... > > > (setq *Admin (db 'id '+Admin 3)) > > > (hi> *Admin) > > > > > > It doesn't work, but maybe it does if some configuration is set up > that I > > > don't know about? > > > > The above seems correct, and works here (i.e. prints "Hi admin."). > > Ah, now I know what your problem is. The 'push' above was probably not > committed, right? So the second 'db' call returned the old object > (without the additional class). > > So my recommendation > > > (set *Admin '(+Admin)) > > should actually be > > (dbSync) > (set> *Admin '(+Admin)) > (commit 'upd) > > or, shorter > > (set!> *Admin '(+Admin)) > > ♪♫ Alex > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe >
