[Ecls-list] ECL & Closer-mop

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> wrote:

> Next error: slot-unbound errors should not be optimized away as far as I
> can tell. Or is there anything in specifications (CL or MOP) that allows
> implementors to do that?
>

There are various things conflicting here:

1* There was a typo in the macroexpander for ECL's core functions (not for
user functions, AFAIK), which used instance-ref instead of
safe-instance-ref. I am uploading a fix tonight, after some further tests.

2* There was a problem in the compiler with optimization settings by which
(optimize speed) implied (safety 0) in some contexts. Hopefully this has
ben solved, too.

3* There is nothing in the Hyperspec or the MOP that explains how errors
are handled under different optimization settings. Typically, a declaration
of low safety leads to AREF, structure accessors and in this case slot
accessors be inlined assuming that no error will take place. This is the
interpretation I have used in various points in ECL. I believe it is
sensible, but I am open to other arguments. This interpretation was
activated by the point 2 above.

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/20121125/6cd409a2/attachment.html>