Just a minute ago, I committed Mark Evenson's work on DEFINE-METHOD-COMBINATION (long form) [short: D-M-C]. It's a port to ABCL of the D-M-C implementation found in XCL which derives from Sacla.
That being the case, I expect the implementation to be little tested. Which can definitely be said of the port. However, some testing with a few self-made tests didn't turn up many problems. However, SBCL has a series of tests for D-M-C. It would be nice if we could port those to ABCL too in an effort to smoke out any issues our D-M-C implementation may have. I smoked out the first one already that way: there was a quote missing is a function which returns a part of a method combination form.
Compile times just longer once again - however, there should be no measurable impact for any code which doesn't use the long form of D-M-C itself.
Serious request: help smoke out problems! Test! Fix! The sooner we get good confidence in the implementation, the sooner we can release 0.23!
Bye,
Erik.
On Oct 19, 2010, at 22:34 , Erik Huelsmann wrote:
[…]
Serious request: help smoke out problems! Test! Fix! The sooner we get good confidence in the implementation, the sooner we can release 0.23!
As noted in private to Erik, I think there are a *lot* of problems with this implementation. Sure, it "passes" the GCL ANSI tests, but the level needed for conformance is pretty minimal, so that's not saying much.
Unfortunately, I'm still up to my eyeballs in the "real" world outside of ABCL (Oh! how I wish to invert this relationship), so I can't give much more than moral support here at the moment. What spare time I have, I am trying to fix the '+' in Pathname bug and the lack of :WILD-INFERIORS problems.
-- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now."
armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net