[asdf-devel] Tests completed

[Robert P. Goldman]

Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>> If you want to implement checks on subclasses, it’s better to do this in initialize-instance / reinitialize-instance on metaclasses, but this requires that the subclasses also use those metaclasses, which may break other assumptions.
>> > 
>> > Sorry if this is a foolish question, but the class at issue here is
>> > OPERATION, whose metaclass is STANDARD-CLASS.
>> > 
>> > So am I correct in thinking I would need something like
>> > 
>> > (defmethod INITIALIZE-INSTANCE :BEFORE ((class standard-class) &key
>> > direct-superclasses)
>> >  (when (member (find-class 'asdf:operation) direct-superclasses)
>> >    ...handle my troublesome case...)))
>> > 
>> > where the primary portability challenge would be to make sure I have the
>> > right STANDARD-CLASS for the various implementations? [Hoping to
>> > cargo-cult that out of Closer-MOP.]
> 
> You are not allowed to define a method for a pre-defined generic function in the MOP on a pre-defined metaclass like this. At least one specializer must be one of your own metaclasses. (See “restrictions on portable programs” in the “Concepts” section of the CLOS MOP specification. It’s _very_ important to stick to these restrictions.)
> 
> So your only chance is to define an operation-class metaclass, and make sure that operation is an instance of operation-class (or similar).
> 

This is quite a crippling limitation, then.  Adding a metaclass would
add another quite substantial amount of compatibility code to ASDF to
permit us to use the MOP (even in a relatively limited way) on all of
the supported implementations.

Can you think of any other way we might detect the creation of
subclasses of OPERATION?

Thank you,

R