Mikael Djurfeldt writes:
> You see, I was under the impression that primitive-generic capability had
> been removed for equal?. It has not. It's only the printed representation
> which has changed.
Ahh, right -- that confused me at first too.
> One way to view this is that the dispatch of
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 5:01 PM Mikael Djurfeldt
wrote:
>
> (define-method (equal? (a ) (b )) ...)
>
> on the other hand, means that you want to *extend* the current behavior of
> equal? with a specialization to two strings. The method is then added to
> equal?, which in guile-1.8 was from
Hi Rob,
I left GOOPS development at Guile version 1.8. The way this was then
intended to work was that
(define-generic equal?)
means that you want to create a new generic equal?. This discards the old
binding for equal?.
(define-method (equal? (a ) (b )) ...)
on the other hand, means that
Rob Browning writes:
> A re-export doesn't affect the module using the re-exporter, and export
> and replace both fail with "Unbound variable: equal?", even though
> there's a (define equal? ...) in the module.
Perhaps there was something else going on, but now :replace does appear
to work,
Rob Browning writes:
> You can work around the problem by stashing equal? somewhere else, and
> then define-generic will work after a (define equal? #f). Presumably
> you'd then need to define a base specialization using the original
> equal? or do something equivalent.
It looks like while
Version: 2.2.6
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (oop goops))
scheme@(guile-user)> equal?
$1 = #
scheme@(guile-user)> (define-generic equal?)
scheme@(guile-user)> equal?
$2 = #
The same appears to be true for other primitives like + too, but if I'm
reading it right, this makes it
