[closer-devel] C2MOP and class-prototype

[Vyacheslav Akhmechet]

BTW, if calling class-prototype on built-in classes is explicitly
forbidden by AMOP, would it make sense to standardize the behavior
accross implementations in C2MOP (by signalling an error, for example)
to prevent people on non-conforming implementations from making
incorrect assumptions?

On 8/22/07, Vyacheslav Akhmechet <coffeemug at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/22/07, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:
> > Before I can make any changes in Closer to MOP here, I would first
> > have to check whether the other Common Lisp implementations could
> > live with such changes as well. My gut feeling tells me that there
> > may be problems here.
> If it helps I ran (class-prototype (find-class 'string)) on a number
> of implementations available to me:
> CLISP: ""
> CMUCL: ""
> SBCL: 42
> ACL Express: Error
> LispWorks: Error
> OpenMCL: Error
>
> > Why don't you just define your own class-prototype function for your
> > own uses? Portable programs and third-party libraries cannot rely on
> > specified behavior here anyway...
> I can do that. I was thrown off by the fact that CLISP, CMUCL, (and
> partially SBCL) returned correct results. I guess AMOP can be (and is)
> interpreted differently when it comes to this.
>
> P.S. Apologies for the private e-mail. I really should have sent this
> through GNUS because GMail keeps doing this to me.
>
> Regards,
> Slava Akhmechet
>