[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Declaration of valid initialization args. not working properly
- To: yurttas@cssun.tamu.edu
- To: yurttas@cssun.tamu.edu
- To: shane%blackcomb@RAND.ORG
- Subject: Declaration of valid initialization args. not working properly
- From: Jon L White <jonl@LUCID.COM>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 89 09:00:35 CDT
- >date: Wed, 12 Jul 89 07:20:40 CDT
- >date: Tue, 11 Jul 89 23:31:33 PDT
- >received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by LSR.TAMU.EDU ; 12-JUL-1989 09:07:11.24
- >received: from Xerox.COM by arisia.Xerox.COM with SMTP (5.61+/IDA-1.2.8/gandalf) id AA22052; Wed, 12 Jul 89 05:25:17 -0700
- >received: from Burger.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 12 JUL 89 05:23:44 PDT
- >received: from venus.tamu.edu ([128.194.4.1]) by Xerox.COM ; 12 JUL 89 05:21:47 PDT
- >received: by venus id <2041C50F031@venus.tamu.edu> ; Wed, 12 Jul 89 07:20:51 CDT
- >received: from arisia.Xerox.COM by LSR.TAMU.EDU ; 12-JUL-1989 07:27:20.49
- >received: from Xerox.COM by arisia.Xerox.COM with SMTP (5.61+/IDA-1.2.8/gandalf) id AA21754; Wed, 12 Jul 89 04:19:36 -0700
- >received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 11 JUL 89 23:33:21 PDT
- >received: from lucid.com ([192.26.25.1]) by Xerox.COM ; 11 JUL 89 23:32:17 PDT
- >received: from bhopal ([192.43.178.13]) by heavens-gate id AA14992g; Tue, 11 Jul 89 23:29:21 PDT
- >received: by bhopal id AA12622g; Tue, 11 Jul 89 23:31:33 PDT
- >return-path: <Owners-CommonLoops.pa@Xerox.COM>
- >return-path: <"LSR::Jon"@venus.tamu.edu>
- >return-path: <Owners-CommonLoops.pa@Xerox.COM>
- >return-path: <jonl@lucid.com>
- >sender: "LSR::Jon"@venus.tamu.edu
- Cc: CommonLoops.pa@Xerox.COM, shane@RAND.ORG, dave@RAND.ORG
- In-reply-to: Darrell's message of Mon, 10 Jul 89 15:19:45 PDT <8907102219.AA27167@blackcomb.rand.org>
- Redistributed: CommonLoops.pa
- Redistributed: CommonLoops.pa
- Redistributed: CommonLoops.pa
- Sender: "LSR::Jon"@venus.tamu.edu
I'm not fully sure, but I think the question you are asking about what
are valid initialization args has already been "posted" as a PCL bug two
months ago by <rao@arisia.Xerox.COM>, on Fri, 12 May 89 09:38:45 PDT.
I haven't seen any public reply to that posting, but we have discussed it
internally here at Lucid, and came to the conclusion that Ramana's
expectations are indeed correct according to the draft CLOS specification.
Your other question -- about why the :before method on ALLOCATE-INSTANCE
isn't firing -- looks to me like a previously unreported bug in standard
method combination. Anyone else think otherwise?
-- JonL --