mirror/guile
mirror/guile
1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-05-28 16:00:22 +02:00
Code Activity

(12): New.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Thien-Thi Nguyen 2002-02-06 23:02:09 +00:00
parent cef1ae3a0c
commit b02284d08f
1 changed files with 63 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

63
BUGS
View file

@ -279,5 +279,68 @@ mvo sez:
> optargs) offers, yo are probably best off writing your own argument
> parser.
bug 12 -- goops class redefinition not signalling "no such accessor" error
reported-by: wawrzin@cs.tu-berlin.de / 2001-12-04
fixed: not-yet
Thomas Wawrzinek sez:
> Running the following script produces some guile output which confueses me:
>
> ;;; script.scm
> (use-modules (oop goops))
>
> (define-class <root> ())
>
> (define-class <foo> (<root>)
> (a #:init-value #f #:accessor a-value #:init-keyword #:a-value)
> (b #:init-value #f #:accessor b-value #:init-keyword #:b-value))
>
> (define-class <bar> (<foo>))
>
> (define-method (initialize (o <bar>) . args)
> (set! (a-value o) "BAR")
> (next-method))
>
> (define-generic print)
>
> (define-method (print (o <bar>))
> (display (a-value o)) (newline)
> (display (b-value o)) (newline))
>
> ;;; OK, this is very *wrong*!
> (define-class <bar> (<root>))
>
> (define baz (make <bar> #:b-value "BAZ"))
>
> (print baz)
>
> $ guile -s script.scm
> BAR
> #<unknown-immediate 0x69746163>
> $ guile -v
> Guile 1.5.4
> Copyright (c) 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation
> Guile may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence;
> certain other uses are permitted as well. For details, see the file
> `COPYING', which is included in the Guile distribution.
> There is no warranty, to the extent permitted by law.
>
> I'm running on a SuSE Linux 7.2 box ...
>
> I expected that because of the second (define-class <bar> ...) I would get
> some sensible error message (at least about the usage of (a-value ...) in
> the (print ...) generic function call).
>
> Maybe I'm mistaken here, I know that GOOPS has a class redefinition
> protocol, but does it go with the define-class macro?
>
> I accidently had such a second (define-class ...) with an already
> used class-name. In a much more complex program than the above, this
> resulted in a segmentation fault (backtrace told me it was GC related).
>
> To avoid such behavior, would it be sensible to have guile indicate
> a wrong usage error or something?
[BUGS ends here]