Lazy error signaling?

[Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>]

88-002R, page 1-30 says:

  "In standard method combination, if there is an applicable method
   bug no applicable primary method, an error is signaled."

Some have interpreted that to mean that it is OK to define an :around
method that doesn't call CALL-NEXT-METHOD, since the error signaling
in this case should only be triggered when an attempt is made to call
the non-existent primary method.  Others take the stricter view that
the error should be signaled at effective-method computation time,
regardless of whether or not CALL-NEXT-METHOD is involved.

Anyone of you out there got an opinion on this one?


-- JonL --