[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CLOS bug
- To: Martin Kenner <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: CLOS bug
- From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 88 15:02 PDT
- Cc: CommonLoops.pa@Xerox.COM
- Fcc: BD:>Gregor>mail>outgoing-mail-2.text.newest
- In-reply-to: <8806020338.AA15448@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>
- Line-fold: no
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 88 22:38:42 CDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Martin Kenner)
In trying to compile CLOS on a Symbolics 3640, I have encountered two problems
in the file BOOT.LISP, function expand-defmethod-body-internal, in the
flet form for walk-function.
My guess is that your set of PCL sources is out of sync. Specifically,
your boot.lisp file is probably newer than your walk.lisp file.
I need these things to be fixed! It is, to say the least, aggravating
to find these bugs when I read in the notes that the system is up and running
at Xerox. We (at 3M) would really like to do some rigorous testing of CLOS,
but are on the verge of giving up!
I suspect that if rigorous testing of CLOS is what you are after you
should just go ahead and give up. PCL does not claim to be a complete
implementation of CLOS. My goal is to make it conform to the CLOS
specification, and now that work on the CLOS specification is at a
pause, I should have time to make substantial progress on that front.
The first item on the agenda is performance however.
P.S. Is it possible to get a copy of the list of those who are also
working on CLOS?
Basically everyone on this list is working with PCL with the belief that
it is becoming an implementation of CLOS. As new releases of PCL come
out, people have to update their code to make it conform to the new
release, but eventually they will have CLOS programs.
- CLOS bug
- From: email@example.com (Martin Kenner)