From: Sam Steingold
Subject: history of the standard
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <ufz0l5oc9.fsf@gnu.org>

why can typed structs and classes of the same name coexist?

(progn
  (defstruct (foo (:type vector)))
  (defclass foo () ())
  (list (make-foo) (make-instance 'foo)))

the standard specifies that the above must be legal.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
If at first you don't suck seed, try and suck another seed.

• Re: history of the standard Bruno Haible
  • Re: history of the standard Christophe Rhodes
    • Re: history of the standard Bruno Haible

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: history of the standard
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:26:36 +0000
Message-ID: <cte75s$ode$1@laposte.ilog.fr>

Sam Steingold wrote:
> why can typed structs and classes of the same name coexist?
>
> (progn
>   (defstruct (foo (:type vector)))
>   (defclass foo () ())
>   (list (make-foo) (make-instance 'foo)))
>
> the standard specifies that the above must be legal.

I'm not so sure about that: The MAKE-FOO function may well use the
definition of FOO as a type established by DEFSTRUCT. But this definition
of FOO is replaced by the DEFCLASS form, before MAKE-FOO is called.

               Bruno

From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: history of the standard
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:56:56 +0000
Message-ID: <sqllad6zmv.fsf@cam.ac.uk>

Bruno Haible <·····@clisp.org> writes:

> Sam Steingold wrote:
>> (progn
>>   (defstruct (foo (:type vector)))
>>   (defclass foo () ())
>>   (list (make-foo) (make-instance 'foo)))
>>
>> the standard specifies that the above must be legal.
>
> I'm not so sure about that: The MAKE-FOO function may well use the
> definition of FOO as a type established by DEFSTRUCT. But this definition
> of FOO is replaced by the DEFCLASS form, before MAKE-FOO is called.

(defstruct (foo (:type vector))) does not establish a type named FOO,
though.  I agree with Sam that his code is legal.

Christophe

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: history of the standard
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:13:24 +0000
Message-ID: <ctgjo4$l0$1@laposte.ilog.fr>

Christophe Rhodes wrote:

> (defstruct (foo (:type vector))) does not establish a type named FOO,
> though.  I agree with Sam that his code is legal.

Yes. You are right.

         Bruno