On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Pascal Costanza <pc@p-cos.net> wrote:

Next error: slot-unbound errors should not be optimized away as far as I can tell. Or is there anything in specifications (CL or MOP) that allows implementors to do that?

There are various things conflicting here:

1* There was a typo in the macroexpander for ECL's core functions (not for user functions, AFAIK), which used instance-ref instead of safe-instance-ref. I am uploading a fix tonight, after some further tests.

2* There was a problem in the compiler with optimization settings by which (optimize speed) implied (safety 0) in some contexts. Hopefully this has ben solved, too.

3* There is nothing in the Hyperspec or the MOP that explains how errors are handled under different optimization settings. Typically, a declaration of low safety leads to AREF, structure accessors and in this case slot accessors be inlined assuming that no error will take place. This is the interpretation I have used in various points in ECL. I believe it is sensible, but I am open to other arguments. This interpretation was activated by the point 2 above.