On Jan 8, 2008 7:38 PM, Robert L. Read <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you very much, Sean. I suggest you work with Henrik and Alex and > I on this as well (possibly off-line, outside of this forum.)
Thanks, I'll try and put together an initial proposal for Henrik, Alex and I to start with. > 2) The test always worked for me (the first time they were run.) When > I ran them the second time, I had failures. I am not 100% sure this had > to do with your patch or not...it is possible that I have an SBCL error > or some other problem. I'm hoping that when I get postmodern and the tests up and running that I can test this with Lispworks. > 4) Given the multiple inheritance of "pm-indexed-btree" (a subclass of > "indexed-btree" and "pm-btree", it was not clear to me exactly what > order the MOP stuff got called. It is possible that some subtle aspects > of this are even lisp-dependent. I think I may have discovered why pm-indexed-btree could behave oddly with the new patch. All the methods defined are defined on persistent-object and it appears that persistent-object is not on pm-indexed-btree's class-precedence-list which could cause various amounts of havoc. Alex, can you confirm/refute this? On a different note, It may be worth requiring that perstistent-metaclasses have persistent-object on their class-precedence-list although that is bound to have implications that I haven't thought of. sean. _______________________________________________ elephant-devel site list elephant-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/elephant-devel
