Robert Swindells rjs@fdy2.demon.co.uk writes:
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
"Andy Hefner" ahefner@gmail.com writes:
<antifuchs> Athas: very good question. counter-question: can we release mcclim as-is, or should we try for a re-freeze in a few weeks?
Before release, we should definitely restore the forward-referencing workarounds that Xof removed, as they're still needed for CMUCL.
I agree, but has anyone reported this bug to the CMUCL folks? (It might not be too much like hard work for them to fix...)
There isn't anything in the CMUCL archives. It is difficult to stay subscribed to cmucl-devel due to the amount of spam, so people might not have seen a bug report even if it had been sent.
What workaround used to be there ?
I believe if you try to compile mcclim under current CMUCL (using mcclim.asd) you will get an error about a layout being invalid (or some such similar message). The error disappears if, in protocol-classes.lisp, the definition of the DESIGN class is moved to above the first time it is referenced as a superclass (by the REGION protocol class).
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/mcclim/protocol-classes.lisp?root=mcclim&r1=1.2&r2=1.3 shows the mcclim diff which exposes the problem. It's possible, though I'm not sure, that the patch which fixed the similar problem in SBCL was merged as version sbcl-0.9.10.27 (that codepath was subsequently modified in sbcl-0.9.11.45).
(CMUCL no longer runs on any machine I have access to, so I can't test anything.)
Cheers,
Christophe