[Ecls-list] ECL + ContextL?

[Alexander Gavrilov]

> More or less, but I wonder whether we need so much code duplication or
> instead find a common ancestor. I do not have my copy of AMOP around.
> Is funcallable-standard-class not a subclass of standard-class?
> 
> > Btw, the MOP feature test suite complains that built-in-class
> > should be an instance of standard-class instead of class.
> > Is there any reason behind this mismatch, or is it just a typo?
> 
> Hmmm, I probably misread the specification, but built in objects are
> not standard objects in general. I mean you can not manipulate their
> slots in the same way it is done with instances of standard classes.
> That was probably my motivation when I wrote that code.

Here is an online version of the spec (or so it seems):

  http://www.lisp.org/mop/concepts.html#inheritance

This table specifies both that 'class' is an abstract
class, so there should be no instances of it, and that
funcallable-standard-class inherits directly from class.

On the other hand, funcallable-standard-object does seem
to be a subclass of standard-object.

Also, a comment in kernel.lsp says that standard-generic-function
must be 'first in the class hierarchy'? Does that mean that it must
actually inherit directly from standard-object, or only that all
ancestors must not have any slots of their own? The spec says
that it should inherit from a bunch of abstract classes, e.g.
funcallable-standard-object.

Alexander