0.8.0.75:

[sbcl.git] / src / pcl / defcombin.lisp

diff --git a/src/pcl/defcombin.lisp b/src/pcl/defcombin.lisp
index ff92657..897b644 100644 (file)
--- a/src/pcl/defcombin.lisp
+++ b/src/pcl/defcombin.lisp
@@ -161,8 +161,29 @@
                `(,operator ,@(mapcar (lambda (m) `(call-method ,m ()))
                                      primary)))))
       (cond ((null primary)
-            `(error "No ~S methods for the generic function ~S."
-                    ',type ',generic-function))
+            ;; FIXME(?): NO-APPLICABLE-METHOD seems more appropriate
+            ;; here, but
+            ;;   (1) discussion with CSR on #lisp reminded me that it's
+            ;;       a vexed question whether we can validly call
+            ;;       N-A-M when an :AROUND method exists (and the
+            ;;       definition of NO-NEXT-METHOD seems to discourage
+            ;;       us from calling NO-NEXT-METHOD directly in that
+            ;;       case, since it's supposed to be called from a
+            ;;       CALL-NEXT-METHOD form), and
+            ;;   (2) a call to N-A-M would require &REST FUN-ARGS, and
+            ;;       we don't seem to have FUN-ARGS here.
+            ;; I think ideally failures in short method combination
+            ;; would end up either in NO-APPLICABLE-METHOD or
+            ;; NO-NEXT-METHOD, and I expect that's what ANSI
+            ;; generally intended, but it's not clear to me whether
+            ;; the details of what they actually specified let us
+            ;; make that happen. So for now I've just tried to
+            ;; clarify the error message text but left the general
+            ;; logic alone (and raised the question on sbcl-devel).
+            ;; -- WHN 2003-06-16
+            `(error "no ~S methods for ~S on these arguments"
+                    ',type
+                    ',generic-function))
            ((null around) main-method)
            (t
             `(call-method ,(car around)