Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wrote: >> >> Yes. > > (Which is not to say I'm sure it'd look better, just an idea. Those > bits don't seem like they should be terribly difficult, a niceish or > typical example of each is probably plenty.) I'm inclined not to do this right now. We pr

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

I wrote: > > Yes. (Which is not to say I'm sure it'd look better, just an idea. Those bits don't seem like they should be terribly difficult, a niceish or typical example of each is probably plenty.) ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org ht

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Do you mean making separate @deffn's, Yes. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> Thanks; I've applied most of it to HEAD, > > If it's any good then it's worth having in the 1.8 branch, no need for > doc clarifications to wait the 3 years between major releases :-). Agreed; done. >> with sl

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thanks; I've applied most of it to HEAD, If it's any good then it's worth having in the 1.8 branch, no need for doc clarifications to wait the 3 years between major releases :-). > with slight edits so as not to make the point too many times. Looks a l

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hi Neil, > > Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm trying to clear out old email... Would you mind reposting the >> remaining patch if you still have it; unfortunately the texinfo is >> mangled in the HTML copy. > > In the meantime, Marius

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Hi Neil, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> I'm not sure whether Mikael Djurfeldt is actually following this list so >> perhaps somebody else would like to give their opinion about these >> documentation bits? >> >> Thanks, >> Ludovic. >> >>

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > I'm not sure whether Mikael Djurfeldt is actually following this list so > perhaps somebody else would like to give their opinion about these > documentation bits? > > Thanks, > Ludovic. > > [0] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2006-03/msg

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Hello, (See [0] for the beginning of this thread...) Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >> Then perhaps the example >> that follows is just too much, too trivial. Is it what you mean? > > Yes. (But fortunately I'm not the final arbiter, so i

[PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Hi, The patch below documents the following "issue": ;; What you have in mind is that the `blurps' slot will always refer ;; to a new list. guile> (define-class () (blurps :init-value (list 0))) guile> (define c (make )) guile> (set-car! (slot-ref c 'blurps) 1) guile> (slo

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > Then perhaps the example > that follows is just too much, too trivial. Is it what you mean? Yes. (But fortunately I'm not the final arbiter, so if perhaps Mikael thinks otherwise then it could yet get go in :-) ___

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

Hi, Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That bit sounds fair, I it in. I think the rest labours the point a > little. Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. > Hopefully seeing init-thunk and init-form described is > enough. I think the [EMAIL PROTECTED] across all new instances

Re: [PATCH] Document pitfalls with `define-class' and `#:init-value'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > shared across all new instances of the class That bit sounds fair, I it in. I think the rest labours the point a little. Hopefully seeing init-thunk and init-form described is enough. ___ Guile-devel ma