Re: [Chicken-users] update: complex egg, problems with SRFI-10 implementation

[felix winkelmann]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:12:00 +0200, Thomas Chust <address@hidden> wrote:
> Felix Winkelmann wrote:
> 
> If you think that would be best, why shouldn't I do it this way ;) A new
> version using a SRFI-9 record type instead of conses is available from
> the usual location.

:-)

> 
> I also defined a SRFI-10 reader constructor to go along with the record
> printer and ran into the following problem:
> 
> Suppose you do this in csi:
> 
> #;4> (define-record blubb a b)
> #;5> (define-reader-ctor 'blubb make-blubb)
> 
> Then
> 
> #;6> #,(blubb 1 2)
> Error: illegal non-atomic object: #<blubb>
> 
> yields an error -- but why?

The creation of the blubb happens at *read-time*, and blubbs
aren't self-evaluating: you have to quote it:

'#,(blubb 1 2)


cheers,
felix