+;;; until sbcl-0.7.12.47, PCL wasn't aware of some direct class
+;;; relationships. These aren't necessarily true, but are probably
+;;; not going to change often.
+(dolist (x '(number array sequence character symbol))
+ (assert (eq (car (class-direct-superclasses (find-class x)))
+ (find-class t)))
+ (assert (member (find-class x)
+ (class-direct-subclasses (find-class t)))))
+\f
+;;; the class-prototype of the NULL class used to be some weird
+;;; standard-instance-like thing. Make sure it's actually NIL.
+;;;
+;;; (and FIXME: eventually turn this into asserting that the prototype
+;;; of all built-in-classes is of the relevant type)
+(assert (null (class-prototype (find-class 'null))))
+\f
+;;; simple consistency checks for the SB-PCL (perhaps AKA SB-MOP)
+;;; package: all of the functionality specified in AMOP is in
+;;; functions:
+(assert (null (loop for x being each external-symbol in "SB-PCL"
+ unless (fboundp x) collect x)))
+;;; and all generic functions in SB-PCL have at least one specified
+;;; method, except for UPDATE-DEPENDENT
+(assert (null (loop for x being each external-symbol in "SB-PCL"
+ unless (or (eq x 'update-dependent)
+ (not (typep (fdefinition x) 'generic-function))
+ (> (length (generic-function-methods
+ (fdefinition x)))
+ 0))
+ collect x)))
+\f