Comment 3 for bug 632368

Nikodemus Siivola (nikodemus) wrote :

Final version. I elected to leave the type information out, since looking at it is not portable anyways, in which case users are probably better off writing deftransforms.

Now the question is, is this actually permitted? Are there circumstances where this can cause things to go wrong?

Reading makes me think that no-one really considered this as an option. The language of the spec talks about forms, but doesn't go out of its way to say "actual source form" or anything like that.

Currently I can't think of a problem, but still wondering.