[Openmcl-devel] Problems with call-next-method in 1.4-dev-r12912M-trunk (WindowsX8632)
akopa.gmane.poster at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 14:05:58 PDT 2009
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.
More information about the Openmcl-devel