From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: goops: make 'allowing' the use of non existing init kw or slot Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:16:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87vctj82y7.fsf@pobox.com> References: <20110820162842.213b7ed4@rascar> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1314447391 27516 80.91.229.12 (27 Aug 2011 12:16:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org To: David Pirotte Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 27 14:16:26 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QxHoG-0000ZE-L5 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:16:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57925 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QxHoG-00039u-3u for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:16:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:43634) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QxHoD-00039p-Ei for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:16:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QxHoC-0003XD-7c for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:16:21 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:35706 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QxHoC-0003X9-1V for bug-guile@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:16:20 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB38664E; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:16:19 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=u+55+y7ZKGuJU2JSBMvqaInIntk=; b=dQmtOM PJvsX0QEx/x9Fohu3guCsZAiB7jUCPOhMiWnMziXDTbXlAkYNRT4icLkVz5qPFnr 3B5a33dTPTwNZ0LUZFtpKP94kXs8l1fE2PyWyYxKLTSHM1KxApI/pNIjHnnyYsdK ypVVjWlgh732Fq+M5V98RiPXBhdVjMgxCv0f0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=dBs5QBb/znApke4O5TjU2y6o0ndoWHiz wru8NiFwfLj5NGbrKEWFJdsUZoAh0DIHrJjWRkCCpBwKHNKJb4UcVdkcP7cLzipz YM1suxWqClBXBWnYI53oq51VhJeuhcHnks6eYPqlmJjqugHJen0d0AU78zbyu8Dd wqlOSMmF9Ys= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49D6664D; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [128.93.60.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25F90664C; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 08:16:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20110820162842.213b7ed4@rascar> (David Pirotte's message of "Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:28:42 -0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5EAAF4F8-D0A6-11E0-96C0-B797DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:5795 Archived-At: Hi, On Sat 20 Aug 2011 21:28, David Pirotte writes: > The attached code speaks for itself It does, but it takes me time to parse it. If possible I prefer a format of giving short examples inline with a mail message, saying what you expect should happen, then saying what actually happens. Just saying :) > shouldn't we get an error on both of these attempts? > > 1] the slot exists but no :init-keyword was defined; > 2] the slot does not exists. That is not how things have worked in the past. The algorithm goes, "for each slot definition, initialize it." It doesn't go, "for each keyword-argument pair, see what slot corresponds to it, and error otherwise". I think we would need some deeper CLOS / GOOPS insight here to change this. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/