[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Lazy error signaling?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Lazy error signaling?
- From: Patrick Dussud <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 90 08:34:51 PDT
- Cc: Common-Lisp-Object-System@MCC.COM
- In-reply-to: Jon L White's message of Mon, 7 May 90 20:34:40 PDT <9005080334.AA05154@ptl-club>
Date: Mon, 7 May 90 20:34:40 PDT
From: Jon L White <jonl>
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 --
TICLOS takes the stricter view, it signal an error at compute-effective-method
time. This tends to get supported by the sample code of the standard method
combination in 88-002R page 2-35. The code clearly states that at least one
primary is required, regardless of the flow of control in the :around method.