(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:
+ ;; Moellmann in sbcl-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)))
+ (assert (eq (odd-key-args-checking :key t) t))
+ ;; yet some more, fixed in sbcl-0.7.9.xx
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo005 ()
+ (:metaclass sb-pcl::funcallable-standard-class)
+ (:metaclass 1)))
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo006 ()
+ ((a :reader (setf a)))))
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo007 ()
+ ((a :initarg 1))))
+ (assert-program-error (defclass foo008 ()
+ (a :initarg :a)
+ (:default-initargs :a 1)
+ (:default-initargs :a 2))))
\f
;;; DOCUMENTATION's argument-precedence-order wasn't being faithfully
;;; preserved through the bootstrap process until sbcl-0.7.8.39.
(defclass subclass-for-class-allocation (superclass-with-slot) ())
(make-instance 'subclass-for-class-allocation)
\f
-;;;; success
+;;; bug #136: CALL-NEXT-METHOD was being a little too lexical,
+;;; resulting in failure in the following:
+(defmethod call-next-method-lexical-args ((x integer))
+ x)
+(defmethod call-next-method-lexical-args :around ((x integer))
+ (let ((x (1+ x)))
+ (call-next-method)))
+(assert (= (call-next-method-lexical-args 3) 3))
+\f
+;;; DEFINE-METHOD-COMBINATION with arguments was hopelessly broken
+;;; until 0.7.9.5x
+(defvar *d-m-c-args-test* nil)
+(define-method-combination progn-with-lock ()
+ ((methods ()))
+ (:arguments object)
+ `(unwind-protect
+ (progn (lock (object-lock ,object))
+ ,@(mapcar #'(lambda (method)
+ `(call-method ,method))
+ methods))
+ (unlock (object-lock ,object))))
+(defun object-lock (obj)
+ (push "object-lock" *d-m-c-args-test*)
+ obj)
+(defun unlock (obj)
+ (push "unlock" *d-m-c-args-test*)
+ obj)
+(defun lock (obj)
+ (push "lock" *d-m-c-args-test*)
+ obj)
+(defgeneric d-m-c-args-test (x)
+ (:method-combination progn-with-lock))
+(defmethod d-m-c-args-test ((x symbol))
+ (push "primary" *d-m-c-args-test*))
+(defmethod d-m-c-args-test ((x number))
+ (error "foo"))
+(assert (equal (d-m-c-args-test t) '("primary" "lock" "object-lock")))
+(assert (equal *d-m-c-args-test*
+ '("unlock" "object-lock" "primary" "lock" "object-lock")))
+(setf *d-m-c-args-test* nil)
+(ignore-errors (d-m-c-args-test 1))
+(assert (equal *d-m-c-args-test*
+ '("unlock" "object-lock" "lock" "object-lock")))
+\f
+;;; The walker (on which DEFMETHOD depended) didn't know how to handle
+;;; SYMBOL-MACROLET properly. In fact, as of sbcl-0.7.10.20 it still
+;;; doesn't, but it does well enough to compile the following without
+;;; error (the problems remain in asking for a complete macroexpansion
+;;; of an arbitrary form).
+(symbol-macrolet ((x 1))
+ (defmethod bug222 (z)
+ (macrolet ((frob (form) `(progn ,form ,x)))
+ (frob (print x)))))
+(assert (= (bug222 t) 1))
+;;; also, a test case to guard against bogus environment hacking:
+(eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
+ (setq bug222-b 3))
+;;; this should at the least compile:
+(let ((bug222-b 1))
+ (defmethod bug222-b (z stream)
+ (macrolet ((frob (form) `(progn ,form ,bug222-b)))
+ (frob (format stream "~D~%" bug222-b)))))
+;;; and it would be nice (though not specified by ANSI) if the answer
+;;; were as follows:
+(let ((x (make-string-output-stream)))
+ ;; not specified by ANSI
+ (assert (= (bug222-b t x) 3))
+ ;; specified.
+ (assert (char= (char (get-output-stream-string x) 0) #\1)))
+\f
+;;;; success
(sb-ext:quit :unix-status 104)