179:
(fixed in sbcl-0.7.4.28)
+180:
+ In sbcl-0.7.4.35, PCL seems not to understand the :MOST-SPECIFIC-LAST
+ option for PROGN method combination. It does understand that
+ :MOST-SPECIFIC-FIRST and :MOST-SPECIFIC-LAST belong with PROGN.
+ If I use another keyword, it complains:
+ (defgeneric foo ((x t))
+ (:method-combination progn :most-specific-first))
+ outputs
+ method combination error in CLOS dispatch:
+ Illegal options to a short method combination type.
+ The method combination type PROGN accepts one option which
+ must be either :MOST-SPECIFIC-FIRST or :MOST-SPECIFIC-LAST.
+ And when I use :MOST-SPECIFIC-FIRST, I get the expected default
+ behavior:
+ (defgeneric foo ((x t))
+ (:method-combination progn :most-specific-first))
+ (defmethod foo progn ((x number))
+ (print 'number))
+ (defmethod foo progn ((x fixnum))
+ (print 'fixnum))
+ (foo 14)
+ outputs
+ FIXNUM
+ NUMBER
+ and returns
+ NUMBER
+ But with :MOST-SPECIFIC-LAST,
+ (defgeneric foo ((x t))
+ (:method-combination progn :most-specific-last))
+ (defmethod foo progn ((x number))
+ (print 'number))
+ (defmethod foo progn ((x fixnum))
+ (print 'fixnum))
+ (foo 14)
+ the behavior doesn't change, giving output of
+ FIXNUM
+ NUMBER
+ and returning
+ NUMBER
+ Raymond Toy reported 2002-06-15 on sbcl-devel that CMU CL's PCL
+ doesn't seem to have this bug, outputting NUMBER before FIXNUM
+ as expected in the last case above.
+
+181:
+ Compiling
+ (in-package :cl-user)
+ (defun bar (x)
+ (declare (type 0 x))
+ (cons x x))
+ signals
+ bad thing to be a type specifier: 0
+ which seems fine, but also enters the debugger (instead of having
+ the compiler handle the error, convert it into a COMPILER-ERROR, and
+ continue compiling) which seems wrong.
+
+
DEFUNCT CATEGORIES OF BUGS
IR1-#:
These labels were used for bugs related to the old IR1 interpreter.