- ;; INVOKE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD-FUNCTION has code in it to
- ;; dispatch on the possibility that EMF might be of
- ;; type FIXNUM (as an optimized representation of a
- ;; slot accessor). But as far as I (WHN 2002-06-11)
- ;; can tell, it's impossible for such a representation
- ;; to end up as .NEXT-METHOD-CALL. By reassuring
- ;; INVOKE-E-M-F that when called from this context
- ;; it needn't worry about the FIXNUM case, we can
- ;; keep those cases from being compiled, which is
- ;; good both because it saves bytes and because it
- ;; avoids annoying type mismatch compiler warnings.
- ;;
- ;; KLUDGE: In sbcl-0.7.4.29, the compiler's type
- ;; system isn't smart enough about NOT and
- ;; intersection types to benefit from a (NOT FIXNUM)
- ;; declaration here. -- WHN 2002-06-12 (FIXME: maybe
- ;; it is now... -- CSR, 2003-06-07)
- ;;
- ;; FIXME: Might the FUNCTION type be omittable here,
- ;; leaving only METHOD-CALLs? Failing that, could this
- ;; be documented somehow? (It'd be nice if the types
- ;; involved could be understood without solving the
- ;; halting problem.)
- `(the (or function method-call fast-method-call)
- ,emf))
- (call-next-method-bind (&body body)
- `(let () ,@body))
- (call-next-method-body (method-name-declaration cnm-args)
- `(if ,',next-method-call
- ,(locally
- ;; This declaration suppresses a "deleting
- ;; unreachable code" note for the following IF
- ;; when REST-ARG is NIL. It is not nice for
- ;; debugging SBCL itself, but at least it
- ;; keeps us from annoying users.
- (declare (optimize (inhibit-warnings 3)))
- (if (and (null ',rest-arg)
- (consp cnm-args)
- (eq (car cnm-args) 'list))
- `(invoke-effective-method-function
- (narrowed-emf ,',next-method-call)
- nil
- ,@(cdr cnm-args))
- (let ((call `(invoke-effective-method-function
- (narrowed-emf ,',next-method-call)
- ,',(not (null rest-arg))
- ,@',args
- ,@',(when rest-arg `(,rest-arg)))))
- `(if ,cnm-args
- (bind-args ((,@',args
- ,@',(when rest-arg
- `(&rest ,rest-arg)))
- ,cnm-args)
- ,call)
- ,call))))
- ,(locally
- ;; As above, this declaration suppresses code
- ;; deletion notes.
- (declare (optimize (inhibit-warnings 3)))
- (if (and (null ',rest-arg)
- (consp cnm-args)
- (eq (car cnm-args) 'list))
- `(call-no-next-method ',method-name-declaration
- ,@(cdr cnm-args))
- `(call-no-next-method ',method-name-declaration
- ,@',args
- ,@',(when rest-arg
- `(,rest-arg)))))))
- (next-method-p-body ()
- `(not (null ,',next-method-call)))
- (with-rebound-original-args ((cnm-p setq-p) &body body)
- (if (or cnm-p setq-p)
- `(let ,',rebindings
- (declare (ignorable ,@',all-params))
- ,@body)
- `(let () ,@body))))
+ ;; INVOKE-EFFECTIVE-METHOD-FUNCTION has code in it to
+ ;; dispatch on the possibility that EMF might be of
+ ;; type FIXNUM (as an optimized representation of a
+ ;; slot accessor). But as far as I (WHN 2002-06-11)
+ ;; can tell, it's impossible for such a representation
+ ;; to end up as .NEXT-METHOD-CALL. By reassuring
+ ;; INVOKE-E-M-F that when called from this context
+ ;; it needn't worry about the FIXNUM case, we can
+ ;; keep those cases from being compiled, which is
+ ;; good both because it saves bytes and because it
+ ;; avoids annoying type mismatch compiler warnings.
+ ;;
+ ;; KLUDGE: In sbcl-0.7.4.29, the compiler's type
+ ;; system isn't smart enough about NOT and
+ ;; intersection types to benefit from a (NOT FIXNUM)
+ ;; declaration here. -- WHN 2002-06-12 (FIXME: maybe
+ ;; it is now... -- CSR, 2003-06-07)
+ ;;
+ ;; FIXME: Might the FUNCTION type be omittable here,
+ ;; leaving only METHOD-CALLs? Failing that, could this
+ ;; be documented somehow? (It'd be nice if the types
+ ;; involved could be understood without solving the
+ ;; halting problem.)
+ `(the (or function method-call fast-method-call)
+ ,emf))
+ (call-next-method-bind (&body body)
+ `(let () ,@body))
+ (call-next-method-body (method-name-declaration cnm-args)
+ `(if ,',next-method-call
+ ,(locally
+ ;; This declaration suppresses a "deleting
+ ;; unreachable code" note for the following IF
+ ;; when REST-ARG is NIL. It is not nice for
+ ;; debugging SBCL itself, but at least it
+ ;; keeps us from annoying users.
+ (declare (optimize (inhibit-warnings 3)))
+ (if (and (null ',rest-arg)
+ (consp cnm-args)
+ (eq (car cnm-args) 'list))
+ `(invoke-effective-method-function
+ (narrowed-emf ,',next-method-call)
+ nil
+ ,@(cdr cnm-args))
+ (let ((call `(invoke-effective-method-function
+ (narrowed-emf ,',next-method-call)
+ ,',(not (null rest-arg))
+ ,@',args
+ ,@',(when rest-arg `(,rest-arg)))))
+ `(if ,cnm-args
+ (bind-args ((,@',args
+ ,@',(when rest-arg
+ `(&rest ,rest-arg)))
+ ,cnm-args)
+ ,call)
+ ,call))))
+ ,(locally
+ ;; As above, this declaration suppresses code
+ ;; deletion notes.
+ (declare (optimize (inhibit-warnings 3)))
+ (if (and (null ',rest-arg)
+ (consp cnm-args)
+ (eq (car cnm-args) 'list))
+ `(call-no-next-method ',method-name-declaration
+ ,@(cdr cnm-args))
+ `(call-no-next-method ',method-name-declaration
+ ,@',args
+ ,@',(when rest-arg
+ `(,rest-arg)))))))
+ (next-method-p-body ()
+ `(not (null ,',next-method-call)))
+ (with-rebound-original-args ((cnm-p setq-p) &body body)
+ (if (or cnm-p setq-p)
+ `(let ,',rebindings
+ (declare (ignorable ,@',all-params))
+ ,@body)
+ `(let () ,@body))))