From: <rin...@cs...> - 2002-07-25 01:00:14
|
Hello, There are some define-conditions in (at least) port/ext.lisp and port/net.lisp that use slot-boundp in their :report clauses. According to CLHS the consequences of this are undefined. With CMUCL (18c) this means that it claims that those slots don't exist (even when they are initialized). Maybe the slots could have :initform nil or something? Or is there some equivalent of slot-boundp for conditions? --=20 Janne Rinta-M=E4nty |
From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2002-07-25 13:18:05
|
Hi, > There are some define-conditions in (at least) port/ext.lisp and > port/net.lisp that use slot-boundp in their :report clauses. > According to CLHS the consequences of this are undefined. where does it say that? This option is processed after the new condition type has been defined, so use of the slot accessors within the :report function is permitted. If this option is not supplied, information about how to report this type of condition is inherited from the parent-type. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running RedHat7.3 GNU/Linux <http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/> <http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.palestine-central.com/links.html> Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. |
From: Marco A. <ma...@cs...> - 2002-07-25 14:46:58
|
> X-Sent: 25 Jul 2002 13:17:58 GMT > Cc: clo...@li... > Reply-To: sd...@gn... > Mail-Copies-To: never > From: Sam Steingold <sd...@gn...> > Sender: clo...@li... > X-Original-Date: 25 Jul 2002 09:17:56 -0400 > Date: 25 Jul 2002 09:17:56 -0400 > > Hi, > > > There are some define-conditions in (at least) port/ext.lisp and > > port/net.lisp that use slot-boundp in their :report clauses. > > According to CLHS the consequences of this are undefined. > > where does it say that? > > This option is processed after the new condition type has been > defined, so use of the slot accessors within the :report function is > permitted. If this option is not supplied, information about how to > report this type of condition is inherited from the parent-type. I think there is room for interpretation here. CLOS is not required for conditions. But "accessors definitions" are. So it is the use of SLOT-BOUNDP that is not necessarily correct. Cheers -- Marco Antoniotti ======================================================== NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488 715 Broadway 10th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122 New York, NY 10003, USA http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu "Hello New York! We'll do what we can!" Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'. |
From: <rin...@cs...> - 2002-07-25 17:21:55
|
Marco Antoniotti 2002-07-25T14:47:27Z: >> > There are some define-conditions in (at least) port/ext.lisp and >> > port/net.lisp that use slot-boundp in their :report clauses. >> > According to CLHS the consequences of this are undefined. >>=20 >> where does it say that? > I think there is room for interpretation here. > CLOS is not required for conditions. But "accessors definitions" are. > So it is the use of SLOT-BOUNDP that is not necessarily correct. Yes, (sorry, I should have put this in my previous message) it's in the description of slot-boundp: "Note in particular that the behavior for conditions and structures is not specified." --=20 Janne Rinta-M=E4nty |