In the following sequence:
(define-record-type <pare>
(kons x y)
pare?
(x kar set-kar!)
(y kdr))
(define-record-type <pare>
(cons x y)
pair?
(x car set-car!)
(y cdr))
(kar (kons 1 2)) ;; WILL THIS STILL WORK?
In other words, will the second definition of <pare> (with different accessors)
in the same scope mess up the first record type definition?
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
