[Ecls-list] ECL & Closer-mop

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:

> OK, I can report a success: All my test cases run through now (almost, see
> below ;).
>

Thanks once more for all your work on these issues. I really appreciate the
effort that it implies.


> 1) extract-specializer-names is not correct for eql specializers.
> Consider: (extract-specializer-names '((s (eql 's)))) => ((EQL
> S)). However, the result should be ((EQL 'S)), the quote should not be
> removed!
>

Fixed in git/CVS. Will upload it tonight.


> 2) When an accessor method is initialized, it should be passed a
> :slot-definition argument to the slot it is supposed to access. This
> doesn't seem to happen.
>

Fixed also.


> 3) When ADD-METHOD has to remove a method because of agreeing on
> specializers and qualifiers with the new method, it is specified to do so
> by invoking REMOVE-METHOD rather than by doing it by itself. However, this
> doesn't seem to be the case.
>

The early versions of ADD- and REMOVE-METHOD lived in the same file. They
were calling each other, but not the generic function version. Fixed.


> 4) DEFMETHOD doesn't call MAKE-METHOD-LAMBDA to determine the method
> function body. [My guess is that this is not easy to change due to the
> deviation from the MOP specification in how method functions are called.]
>

Same as in 3)


> 5) (setf generic-function-name) is specified to invoke
> reinitialize-instance to do its job, rather than doing it by itself.
> However, this doesn't seem to be the case.
>

Thanks, I had overlooked that generic-function-name names just a reader,
not an accessor.


> 6) Many of the metaobject classes expose slots with names that are
> exported from some package or visible in CL-USER. This shouldn't be the
> case. (See "Restrictions on Implementations" in the MOP specification.)
>

I will fix this along the coming days. It requires a bit more work to
compute the list of offending slots and ensuring I do not screw everything
in other parts of ECL. But this should not be a stopper for the release of
Closer-mop, is it?

[I will skip support for the 12.7.1 because that is too much work and will
> be only of temporary value.]
>

I did not expect you to do that. 12.12 should be released any time soon,
once these issues are solved and I verify the Windows ports.

Thanks again.
Cheers,

Juanjo

-- 
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20121203/74f039ec/attachment.html>