[Openmcl-devel] Problems with call-next-method in 1.4-dev-r12912M-trunk (WindowsX8632)

[Matthew Swank]

Robert Goldman <rpgoldman <at> sift.info> writes:

> 
> Matthew D. Swank wrote:
> > Not that spec interpretation is a democracy, but the reason this came
> > up is at least 3 other implementations do not signal an error in this
> > case (sbcl clisp abcl).
> 
> I believe that RME's interpretation is correct here, and you should
> simply do
> 
> (foo bar (length baz))
> 
> instead of
> 
> (call-next-method bar (length baz))
> 
> It seems to me that other implementations should not accept this case.
> The spec doesn't seem ambiguous here.
> 

Yeah, that's what I did to fix things initially. I just wanted to pin down what
was the correct behavior.  Christophe Rhodes pointed out that at higher safety
levels sbcl also signals an error.

Matt