[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Typechecking
- From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: 07 Feb 88 1228 PST
I agree with Jonl that the right thing to do is to say that
attempting to store a type-improper value in a slot should signal
an error. The desire to be in harmony with CLtL in places like
this where CLtL is clearly wrong is inappropriate. If one wants to
argue that there should be no such thing as a :type option, that
is a different matter.
I suppose this will be one of those situations in which the
behavior of stock-hardware CLOS implementations will be superior
to that of the Lisp machines. The error will be caught at the
point of error and not considerable later.
I agreed to modify the document because I have decided to let nothing
stand in the way of my desire to stop working on the specification.
I don't care how stupid a suggestion is: If it's faster for me to
edit the document than to argue against it, I'll edit.