1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-04-30 11:50:28 +02:00
guile/module/oop/goops/compile.scm
Mark H Weaver 074c414e29 Fix GOOPS method compilation bug when no next-method exists
* module/oop/goops/compile.scm (compute-cmethod): Fix a bug
  that caused the method compiler to barf while compiling a
  method that calls (next-method), if there is no applicable
  next method.
2011-01-30 13:30:08 +01:00

55 lines
2.1 KiB
Scheme
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

;;;; Copyright (C) 1999, 2001, 2006, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
;;;;
;;;; This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
;;;; modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
;;;; License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
;;;; version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
;;;;
;;;; This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
;;;; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
;;;; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
;;;; Lesser General Public License for more details.
;;;;
;;;; You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
;;;; License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software
;;;; Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
;;;;
;; There are circularities here; you can't import (oop goops compile)
;; before (oop goops). So when compiling, make sure that things are
;; kosher.
(eval-when (compile) (resolve-module '(oop goops)))
(define-module (oop goops compile)
:use-module (oop goops)
:use-module (oop goops util)
:export (compute-cmethod)
:no-backtrace
)
;;;
;;; Compiling next methods into method bodies
;;;
;;; So, for the reader: there basic idea is that, given that the
;;; semantics of `next-method' depend on the concrete types being
;;; dispatched, why not compile a specific procedure to handle each type
;;; combination that we see at runtime.
;;;
;;; In theory we can do much better than a bytecode compilation, because
;;; we know the *exact* types of the arguments. It's ideal for native
;;; compilation. A task for the future.
;;;
;;; I think this whole generic application mess would benefit from a
;;; strict MOP.
(define (compute-cmethod methods types)
(let ((make-procedure (slot-ref (car methods) 'make-procedure)))
(if make-procedure
(make-procedure
(if (null? (cdr methods))
(lambda args
(no-next-method (method-generic-function (car methods)) args))
(compute-cmethod (cdr methods) types)))
(method-procedure (car methods)))))