freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
7:37:12
pjb
This is why I don't think you can expect next-method-p and call-next-method to be statically determined (or "optimized") in general.
7:37:35
fiddlerwoaroof
But, there are a couple situations where I just want to test that my code works and I don't care what the other code being run does
7:39:05
fiddlerwoaroof
For example, if I'm using a library by extending a generic function, I might want to make sure that, given certain expected inputs, the body of the method produces the expected output, but I might not want to test the library code.
7:39:13
pjb
I don't know what you're trying to isolate. If you can implement your hack, then you can just call the generic function directly, it won't make a difference.
7:39:58
pjb
Again, if you have such simple and orthogonal methods, it may be preferable to put their bodies in separate functions, and test them.
7:40:17
fiddlerwoaroof
It might, if, for example, the :around method connects to a database and writes the result of the primary method to the database, it might be useful to run the primary method by itself to make sure the right data gets written
7:40:39
fiddlerwoaroof
And, this is mostly just an experiment, I'm not really claiming (yet) that this is actually a good idea.
7:41:14
pjb
Definitely, if you have such independent stuff, keep it in separate functions: you probably will want to reuse it elsewhere.
11:58:59
Baggers
easye: It is allowed to succeed if the object is already of the requested type though
12:04:09
edgar-rft
in some years when all folks involved in the ANSI spec are dead, we're finally allowed to implement whatever we want
13:40:16
_death
there, at the edge of the world, as chaos disperses bits throughout, lay the petrified common lisp hyperspec, ready to pronounce your implementation nonconforming
14:24:27
jackdaniel
krator44: here, this one is not proprietary: http://cvberry.com/tech_writings/notes/common_lisp_standard_draft.html
14:40:30
|3b|
also there is http://phoe.tymoon.eu/clus/doku.php which is trying to make a new/nice/etc replacement for CLHS
15:09:06
beach
krator44: We treat it that way, because the main specification seems to exist only as a scanned PDF document from ANSI.
15:11:02
beach
krator44: ANSI is a for-profit organization that owns the standard. There is no link to it.
15:11:50
krator44
well what about this one http://cvberry.com/tech_writings/notes/common_lisp_standard_draft.html
15:12:50
beach
krator44: So, again, did you buy the standard from ANSI to determine that it is not a scanned document?
15:18:54
jackdaniel
krator44: this is a fascinating read: http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/cl-untold-story.html
15:30:11
fiddlerwoaroof
Section 3.2 of that essay is one of my favorite non-technical aspects of Common Lisp
15:30:44
fiddlerwoaroof
I'm pretty tired of dealing with languages and standard libraries that change out from under you.
15:32:02
jackdaniel
yes, I find it pretty amusing that CL programs from '94 work flawlessly on today implementations
16:02:14
edgar-rft
jackdaniel: it's probably more like CL programs from '94 work with *exactly the same bugs as they had then* on today implementations