On Mon 22 Aug 2016 03:03, David Pirotte <da...@altosw.be> writes:
> Hello Guilers,
> Hi Andy,
>
> Here below a mini module [1], which raises an exception [2] using
> 2.1.3.104-8f2f8 (it
> compiles fine using 2.0.12). It looks a bit of a 'silly' module but the real
> one
> here do need this combination, I just minimized it for tracking purposes...
>
> For info, if I either comment the use of srfi-1, or merge-generics, _or_ the
> for-each
> expression, it compiles fine. I also tried foo to just do a (filter-map
> string?
> words) and no for-each, to circumvent the problem as far as I could, and it
> compiles fie as well: it appears there is a side effect of the for-each
> version from
> srfi-1 over the core version, when using goops and declaring #:duplicates
> (merge-generics ...).
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
> [1]
>
> (define-module (foo)
> #:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
> #:use-module (oop goops)
>
> #:duplicates (merge-generics
> replace
> warn-override-core
> warn
> last)
So here you are importing two definitions of for-each: one from (guile)
and one from (srfi srfi-1). They are both normal procedures. What
should happen? I guess merge-generics should fail to do anything. I
suppose that is the intention of this method in (oop goops):
(define-method (merge-generics (module <module>)
(name <symbol>)
(int1 <module>)
(val1 <top>)
(int2 <module>)
(val2 <top>)
(var <top>)
(val <top>))
#f)
And yet you get:
ERROR: No applicable method for #<<generic> merge-generics (3)> in call
(merge-generics #<directory (foo) 204c480> for-each #<interface (guile)
20f1ea0> #<procedure for-each (f l) | (f l1 l2) | (f l1 . rest)> #<interface
(srfi srfi-1) 21322d0> #<procedure for-each (f l) | (f l1 l2) | (f l1 . rest)>
#f #f)
This sounds like a bug to me, surely the method should match.
On the other hand this looks bogus to me:
scheme@(foo)> (class-of (resolve-interface '(guile)))
$4 = #<<class> <module> 244bbd0>
scheme@(foo)> (class-of (resolve-interface '(guile)))
$5 = #<<class> <module> 244b900>
Why are we getting two distinct values for the class? Further
investigation necessary.
Andy
