PATCH Re: [rucksack-devel] indexing issue?

[Cyrus Harmon]

Furthermore, while the :no-error option is mentioned in mop.lisp, I  
can't find any reference to this in the code, even though this seems  
to be the current behavior.

On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Cyrus Harmon wrote:

> Well, this is part of the story anyway. It still doesn't give the  
> behavior I want on trying to make an instance with a duplicate  
> value, but I think this is a step in the  right direction.
>
> Also, instead of calling these slot-unique, slot-index, etc...  
> shouldn't the convention be slot-definition-unique, etc...?
>
> Cyrus
>
> On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Cyrus Harmon wrote:
>
>> Ok, I think I've figured out what's wrong with unique slots:
>>
>> --- mop.lisp	28 Nov 2006 15:25:57 -0800	1.11
>> +++ mop.lisp	10 Jan 2007 13:12:19 -0800	
>> @@ -250,6 +250,17 @@
>>               (setf (slot-value effective-slotdef 'index)
>>                     (slot-index (car index-slotdefs))))))
>>
>> +    ;; If exactly one direct slot is unique, then the effective  
>> one is
>> +    ;; too. If more then one is unique, signal an error.
>> +    (let ((unique-slotdefs (remove-if-not #'slot-unique  
>> persistent-slotdefs)))
>> +      (cond ((cdr unique-slotdefs)
>> +             (error "Multiple uniques for slot ~S in ~S:~% ~ 
>> {~S~^, ~}."
>> +                    slot-name class
>> +                    (mapcar #'slot-unique unique-slotdefs)))
>> +            (unique-slotdefs
>> +             (setf (slot-value effective-slotdef 'unique)
>> +                   (slot-unique (car unique-slotdefs))))))
>> +
>>      ;; Return the effective slot definition.
>>      effective-slotdef))
>>
>> I think c-e-s-d needs the previous patch in order to set the  
>> effective-slot-definition's unique slot properly. I'm not sure  
>> it's appropriate to signal an error, but it seems better than  
>> allowing both :unique t and unique :no-error to be specified.
>>
>> Cyrus
>>
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Cyrus Harmon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Arthur Lemmens wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cyrus Harmon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What is the intended behavior of a unique slot?
>>>>
>>>> If a class has a unique slot, you (the programmer) promise that  
>>>> there
>>>> won't be two instances of that class which have a 'similar' value
>>>> for that slot.  The definition of 'similar' depends on the kind of
>>>> index you create (see the predefined index specs in index.lisp for
>>>> some examples).
>>>>
>>>>> I'm able to make-instance new instances of a persistent class with
>>>>> a duplicate slot value
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think that Rucksack doesn't check for this at the moment.
>>>> But it should have signalled an error, I think.
>>>>
>>>>> which seems fine
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so ;-)
>>>
>>> [some months pass...] so, yes, it seems like this should signal  
>>> an error. and it looks like there's code in there to do that, but  
>>> yet it doesn't seem to signal an error. Any idea why not?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Cyrus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rucksack-devel mailing list
>>> rucksack-devel at common-lisp.net
>>> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rucksack-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rucksack-devel mailing list
>> rucksack-devel at common-lisp.net
>> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rucksack-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> rucksack-devel mailing list
> rucksack-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rucksack-devel