[Sbcl-devel] Re: Three "interesting" PCL bugs

[Gerd M. <ger...@t-...>]

Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes:

> The first, as reported by Stig Sand#lisp IRC, is an annoyance
> rather than a critical bug.  But it's quite an annoyance, as can be
> seen from the following transcript:
> 
>   * (defclass foo () ())
>   
>   #<STANDARD-CLASS FOO>

[...]

> These code deletion notes only occur when a variable has the same name
> as a class in the defmethod lambda list, and also when there is more
> than one argument, in current SBCL.  My current suspicion falls on
> SPLIT-DECLARATIONS, which splits the SB-PCL::%CLASS (PCL::CLASS in
> CMUCL) declarations differently if a variable name and a class name in
> the defmethod lambda list are the same, but I am still somewhat at a
> loss to explain all this excitement from the compiler.  I note in
> passing that the %CLASS declaration takes its arguments in the other
> order from TYPE declarations...

I'm afraid I don't see that here.  I've tried at the REPL and
with compiling a file.  I'm using my PCL.
Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: