(defmethod gf (obj)
obj)
\f
+;;; Until sbcl-0.7.7.20, some conditions weren't being signalled, and
+;;; some others were of the wrong type:
+(macrolet ((assert-program-error (form)
+ `(multiple-value-bind (value error)
+ (ignore-errors ,form)
+ (assert (null value))
+ (assert (typep error 'program-error)))))
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo001 () (a b a)))
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo002 ()
+ (a b)
+ (:default-initargs x 'a x 'b)))
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo003 ()
+ ((a :allocation :class :allocation :class))))
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo004 ()
+ ((a :silly t))))
+ ;; and some more, found by Wolfhard Buss and fixed for cmucl by Gerd
+ ;; Moellmann in 0.7.8.x:
+ (assert-program-error (progn
+ (defmethod odd-key-args-checking (&key (key 42)) key)
+ (odd-key-args-checking 3)))
+ (assert (= (odd-key-args-checking) 42))
+ (assert (eq (odd-key-args-checking :key t) t)))
+\f
+;;; DOCUMENTATION's argument-precedence-order wasn't being faithfully
+;;; preserved through the bootstrap process until sbcl-0.7.8.39.
+;;; (thanks to Gerd Moellmann)
+(let ((answer (documentation '+ 'function)))
+ (assert (stringp answer))
+ (defmethod documentation ((x (eql '+)) y) "WRONG")
+ (assert (string= (documentation '+ 'function) answer)))
+\f
+;;; only certain declarations are permitted in DEFGENERIC
+(macrolet ((assert-program-error (form)
+ `(multiple-value-bind (value error)
+ (ignore-errors ,form)
+ (assert (null value))
+ (assert (typep error 'program-error)))))
+ (assert-program-error (defgeneric bogus-declaration (x)
+ (declare (special y))))
+ (assert-program-error (defgeneric bogus-declaration2 (x)
+ (declare (notinline concatenate)))))
+;;; CALL-NEXT-METHOD should call NO-NEXT-METHOD if there is no next
+;;; method.
+(defmethod no-next-method-test ((x integer)) (call-next-method))
+(assert (null (ignore-errors (no-next-method-test 1))))
+(defmethod no-next-method ((g (eql #'no-next-method-test)) m &rest args)
+ 'success)
+(assert (eq (no-next-method-test 1) 'success))
+(assert (null (ignore-errors (no-next-method-test 'foo))))
+\f
+;;; regression test for bug 176, following a fix that seems
+;;; simultaneously to fix 140 while not exposing 176 (by Gerd
+;;; Moellmann, merged in sbcl-0.7.9.12).
+(dotimes (i 10)
+ (let ((lastname (intern (format nil "C176-~D" (1- i))))
+ (name (intern (format nil "C176-~D" i))))
+ (eval `(defclass ,name
+ (,@(if (= i 0) nil (list lastname)))
+ ()))
+ (eval `(defmethod initialize-instance :after ((x ,name) &rest any)
+ (declare (ignore any))))))
+(defclass b176 () (aslot-176))
+(defclass c176-0 (b176) ())
+(assert (= 1 (setf (slot-value (make-instance 'c176-9) 'aslot-176) 1)))
+\f
+;;; DEFINE-METHOD-COMBINATION was over-eager at checking for duplicate
+;;; primary methods:
+(define-method-combination dmc-test-mc (&optional (order :most-specific-first))
+ ((around (:around))
+ (primary (dmc-test-mc) :order order :required t))
+ (let ((form (if (rest primary)
+ `(and ,@(mapcar #'(lambda (method)
+ `(call-method ,method))
+ primary))
+ `(call-method ,(first primary)))))
+ (if around
+ `(call-method ,(first around)
+ (,@(rest around)
+ (make-method ,form)))
+ form)))
+
+(defgeneric dmc-test-mc (&key k)
+ (:method-combination dmc-test-mc))
+
+(defmethod dmc-test-mc dmc-test-mc (&key k)
+ k)
+
+(dmc-test-mc :k 1)
+;;; While I'm at it, DEFINE-METHOD-COMBINATION is defined to return
+;;; the NAME argument, not some random method object. So:
+(assert (eq (define-method-combination dmc-test-return-foo)
+ 'dmc-test-return-foo))
+(assert (eq (define-method-combination dmc-test-return-bar :operator and)
+ 'dmc-test-return-bar))
+(assert (eq (define-method-combination dmc-test-return
+ (&optional (order :most-specific-first))
+ ((around (:around))
+ (primary (dmc-test-return) :order order :required t))
+ (let ((form (if (rest primary)
+ `(and ,@(mapcar #'(lambda (method)
+ `(call-method ,method))
+ primary))
+ `(call-method ,(first primary)))))
+ (if around
+ `(call-method ,(first around)
+ (,@(rest around)
+ (make-method ,form)))
+ form)))
+ 'dmc-test-return))
+\f
+;;; DEFMETHOD should signal a PROGRAM-ERROR if an incompatible lambda
+;;; list is given:
+(defmethod incompatible-ll-test-1 (x) x)
+(multiple-value-bind (result error)
+ (ignore-errors (defmethod incompatible-ll-test-1 (x y) y))
+ (assert (null result))
+ (assert (typep error 'program-error)))
+(multiple-value-bind (result error)
+ (ignore-errors (defmethod incompatible-ll-test-1 (x &rest y) y))
+ (assert (null result))
+ (assert (typep error 'program-error)))
+;;; Sneakily using a bit of MOPness to check some consistency
+(assert (= (length
+ (sb-pcl:generic-function-methods #'incompatible-ll-test-1)) 1))
+
+(defmethod incompatible-ll-test-2 (x &key bar) bar)
+(multiple-value-bind (result error)
+ (ignore-errors (defmethod incompatible-ll-test-2 (x) x))
+ (assert (null result))
+ (assert (typep error 'program-error)))
+(defmethod incompatible-ll-test-2 (x &rest y) y)
+(assert (= (length
+ (sb-pcl:generic-function-methods #'incompatible-ll-test-2)) 1))
+(defmethod incompatible-ll-test-2 ((x integer) &key bar) bar)
+(assert (= (length
+ (sb-pcl:generic-function-methods #'incompatible-ll-test-2)) 2))
+(assert (equal (incompatible-ll-test-2 t 1 2) '(1 2)))
+(assert (eq (incompatible-ll-test-2 1 :bar 'yes) 'yes))
+\f
;;;; success
(sb-ext:quit :unix-status 104)