Peter Hildebrandt wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Ken Tilton kennytilton@optonline.net wrote:
Later on I saw you reporting something weird about .kids not getting reliably handled. I' d like to run down the "weird" rather than just throw in parallel code to make .kids work. After I commit lemme know when the weirdness returns.
Sounds good. I wasn't sure as to whether I understood what I was doing. I just saw that not-to-be did not propagate to kids *at all* if I did it the way I suggested.
OK.
Hold on, one idea: Maybe the problem is with
(get (type-of fm) :ownings), i.e. this only picks up the owning defined on the actual class of fm, not the inherited ones?
To be honest, I am just doing wild guesswork here, so I better shut up :-)
No, you are hot on the trail. I have code which tries to propagate the :owning declaration up and down the class hierarchy, so I wager there is a bug in there. And having revisited this, I find myself not liking the idea of propagating a slot attribute that way, tho I guess propagating down is what other slot attributes do when a slot is reiterated but with some attributes not specified. I may ask the c.l.l yobbo language lawyers what they think.
Hope you guys had a good time in Amsterdam. Hopefully next year I will actually make it :-)
Everything but the talk itself was a blast. It is so great hanging out with Lispers in large quantities. As for the talk, I am tempted to set up my camcorder and do the talk again for YouTube. :( But based on post-talk reaction at least I was understood. A Lispworks guy wanted to talk about how hard it must be to debug the damn things. I said, No and yes, the yes being that I have always antancipated that as non-experts get involved better diagnostics/debug/trace tools would be needed.
I'll be revising the not-to-be thing and look at why kids did not get handled -- good to have a smoking gun to debug. Oh, wait -- what was the class? My guess is one that reiterated the kids slot instead of just supplying a default initarg.
kt