[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1294 by mentioning in the docs that define-record-printer is not a definition

[Peter Bex]

Hi all,

I had another look at #1294 and decided that, while we *could* fake the
record type printer as a definition by wrapping it in a (define) call
with a gensym, I think it doesn't make much sense.  This macro really
isn't a definition and we shouldn't treat it like one.  The name is a
inconvenient so ideally we'd just change that, but that would be a
breaking API change.

Instead, let's just add a note to the docs.  I find it a bit hard to
explain in words, so please take a good look and feel free to suggest
improvements.

Cheers,
Peter

0001-Explain-how-define-record-printer-is-not-a-definitio.patch
Description: Text Data

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature