bug#56751: Protocol of parent record type is ignored

Maxime Devos <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.lisp.guile.bugs
Message-ID <[email protected]>
(import (rnrs records syntactic)
         (rnrs base))

(define-record-type
     (#{I have one field, but no need to set it, I'll do it myself}# 
make-1 type-1?)
   (fields (immutable #{field with a fixed value}# #{get first field 
value}#))
   (protocol
    (lambda (%make)
      (lambda ()
        (#;(%make) ;; XXX unlike what is documented, this needs to be:
     %make
     ;; instead.  Bug in inmplementation or documentation?  Not the issue
     ;; I wanted to note though.
     "some value")))))

(assert (string=? (#{get first field value}# (make-1)) "some value")) ; ok

(define-record-type (#{the subtype}# make-2 type-2?)
   (parent #{I have one field, but no need to set it, I'll do it myself}#))

;;  The problem:
;;
;; Guile seems to have forgotten that the protocol of the supertype,
;; and hence asks for a value for the argument even though the protocol
;; of the original record type normally would give it a value.
;; (Ok, this is interpretation for the symptoms, I haven't yet tested 
this against
;; the source code).
;;
;; This manifests as make-2 havng arity 1 though it should have arity 1:
#;
(assert (equal? (#{get first field value}# (make-2) "some value"))) ;; 
--> wrong number of arguments to #<procedure ...>

;; We can due to the bug also break the abstraction: (see assert failure)
(assert (equal? (#{get first field value}# (make-2 
'break-the-abstraction)) "some value")) ;; --> wrong number of arguments 
to #<procedure ...>

;; Note: if I explicitly write the protocol for the subtype, then all 
the problems disappear
;; (work-around).  For an example in the wild, see the supertype 
<lost-and-found> at
;; 
<https://git.gnunet.org/gnunet-scheme.git/tree/gnu/gnunet/concurrency/lost-and-found.scm>
;; and the subtype at 
<https://git.gnunet.org/gnunet-scheme.git/tree/gnu/gnunet/dht/client.scm#n583>
;; (Not the best example, as I give the new fields default values as 
well, but you get the idea.)
OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, 912 B)
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
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=OVqp
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, 236 B) - not displayed
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.