Re: record pattern

[bill@cambridge.apple.com (Bill St. Clair)]

>to info-mcl@cambridge.apple.com
>cc poeck@informatik.uni-wurzburg.de
>
>I am a little bit confused by the different definitions of the record
>type
>pattern in records.lisp being
>
>(defrecord pattern 
>  (variant ((w0 integer)
>            (w1 integer)
>            (w2 integer)
>            (w3 integer))
>           ((b0 byte)
>            (b1 byte)
>            (b2 byte)
>            (b3 byte)
>            (b4 byte)
>            (b5 byte)
>            (b6 byte)
>            (b7 byte))
>           ((bytes (array byte 8)))
>           ((array (array :unsigned-byte 8)))))
>
>which is fine for use because we have used the b0 , bn variant in our
>program
>but which is commented
>and the version in 
>
>interfaces:quickdraw.lisp which is
>
>(defrecord (Pattern :handle) (array (array :unsigned-byte 8)))
>
>which definition of pattern is the best one? Is it safe to replace the
>definition in quickdraw by the one in records

The old definition is now considered obsolete. The one in
"ccl:interfaces;quickdraw.lisp" conforms to the definition in Inside Macintosh.
You can safely install the old definition in your world in one of two ways:

1) Put the old record definition in your code somewhere
   (ensuring that it is evaluated before any uses of it are compiled).

2) Replace the definition in "ccl:interfaces;quickdraw.lisp" and evaluate
   the form (reindex-interfaces).