(assert (null *e-c-u-c-arg-order*))
(defclass e-c-u-c-arg-order () ())
(assert (eq *e-c-u-c-arg-order* t))
+\f
+;;; verify that FIND-CLASS works after FINALIZE-INHERITANCE
+(defclass automethod-class (standard-class) ())
+(defmethod validate-superclass ((c1 automethod-class) (c2 standard-class))
+ t)
+(defmethod finalize-inheritance :after ((x automethod-class))
+ (format t "~&~S ~S~%" x (find-class (class-name x))))
+(defclass automethod-object () ()
+ (:metaclass automethod-class))
+(defvar *automethod-object* (make-instance 'automethod-object))
+(assert (typep *automethod-object* 'automethod-object))
+\f
+;;; COMPUTE-EFFECTIVE-SLOT-DEFINITION should take three arguments, one
+;;; of which is the name of the slot.
+(defvar *compute-effective-slot-definition-count* 0)
+(defmethod compute-effective-slot-definition :before
+ (class (name (eql 'foo)) dsds)
+ (incf *compute-effective-slot-definition-count*))
+(defclass cesd-test-class ()
+ ((foo :initarg :foo)))
+(make-instance 'cesd-test-class :foo 3)
+;;; FIXME: this assertion seems a little weak. I don't know why
+;;; COMPUTE-EFFECTIVE-SLOT-DEFINITION gets called twice in this
+;;; sequence, nor whether that's compliant with AMOP. -- CSR,
+;;; 2003-04-17
+(assert (> *compute-effective-slot-definition-count* 0))
+\f
;;;; success
(sb-ext:quit :unix-status 104)