On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:57:24AM +0200, Gerd Moellmann wrote:
> Christophe Rhodes <csr21@...> writes:
> > In keeping with the philosophy that we've been applying a while back,
> > would it be "ideal" (for want of a better word) for this error to be
> > mediated via NO-PRIMARY-METHOD?
> > At present, SBCL isn't exporting NO-PRIMARY-METHOD, but it does seem
> > to have the potential of being a relatively useful extension. Gerd,
> > is it documented/exported in CMUCL? What are your feelings?
> Incidentally :), I've just patched CMUCL to use NO-PRIMARY-METHOD
> there; the old error message really was no good. And I've exported
> NO-PRIMARY-METHOD and NO-PRIMARY-METHOD-ERROR from PCL, and put
> an item in the release notes for 19a. Probably should also add
> something to the CMU User Manual...
At the moment my tree has FIXME comments explaining that calling
NO-PRIMARY-METHOD seems appropriate in one of the cases there, and
NO-APPLICABLE-METHOD seems appropriate in the other case, but that in
both cases I don't know how to get to the function arguments cleanly.
(Both NO-FOO-METHOD functions want to know the arguments which caused
the problem.) Expanding into a reference to the magic symbol .ARGS.
could work, but I didn't know whether it's clean enough (e.g. to be
MOPpishly reliable). However, I am not surprised that Gerd knows.:-)
I don't think I'll have time today, but maybe tomorrow I can reconnect
my lightning-traumatized personal workspace to CMU CL CVS, figure out
how it's done, and port the fix to SBCL.
William Harold Newman <william.newman@...>
Saying that taste is just personal preference is a good way to prevent
disputes. The trouble is, it's not true. You feel this when you start
to design things. -- <http://www.paulgraham.com/taste.html>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C