From: <ger...@t-...> - 2002-10-29 22:44:35
|
I found these in SBCL's BUGS file. Maybe I can fix these while I'm working on PCL, but there's too little info, so I'd like to ask two questions: 51: miscellaneous errors reported by Peter Van Eynde July 25, 2000: a: (PROGN (DEFGENERIC FOO02 (X)) (DEFMETHOD FOO02 ((X NUMBER)) T) (LET ((M (FIND-METHOD (FUNCTION FOO02) NIL (LIST (FIND-CLASS (QUOTE NUMBER)))))) (REMOVE-METHOD (FUNCTION FOO02) M) (DEFGENERIC FOO03 (X)) (ADD-METHOD (FUNCTION FOO03) M))) should give an error, but SBCL allows it. (I couldn't find the report from Peter in sbcl-devel archives). Does someone know why this should signal an error? It looks fine to me, because, after removing the method M from #'FOO02, M is no longer associated with a generic function, so adding M to #'FOO03 seems okay. 52: It has been reported (e.g. by Peter Van Eynde) that there are several metaobject protocol "errors". (In order to fix them, we might need to document exactly what metaobject protocol specification we're following -- the current code is just inherited from PCL.) Is there more information on the "errors" available somewhere? |
From: Peter V. E. <pva...@de...> - 2002-10-30 14:12:35
|
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:42:39PM +0100, Gerd Moellmann wrote: > (I couldn't find the report from Peter in sbcl-devel archives). I suppose these two bugs are the result of the ansi-test from clocc. > Is there more information on the "errors" available somewhere? Please note that sometimes it is the test that is wrong and not PCL :-) Groetjes, Peter --=20 It's logic Jim, but not as we know it. | pva...@de... "God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr| http://people.debian.org/~pvaneynd/ "God is more forgiving." - Dave Aronson| http://users.belgacom.net/pvaneynd/ |
From: <ger...@t-...> - 2002-10-31 11:34:54
|
Peter Van Eynde <pva...@de...> writes: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:42:39PM +0100, Gerd Moellmann wrote: > > (I couldn't find the report from Peter in sbcl-devel archives). > > I suppose these two bugs are the result of the ansi-test from clocc. > > > Is there more information on the "errors" available somewhere? > > Please note that sometimes it is the test that is wrong and not PCL :-) OK, then I'll forget about 51, and will see what CLOCC has to say about 52. Thanks, Peter. |