Re: MOP question for language lawyers: can you specialize on standard-class

On 7 May 2026, at 13:49, Madhu (as enometh at meer dot net) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Are the implementation justified in ignoring s-v-u-c for standard
> slots?  I can't tell.

Not if you want to follow the AMOP MOP.  But, well, my opinions on the AMOP MOP are, well.

> If in the future lispworks changes the signature of s-v-u-c to use a
> slot-definition object instead of a symbol, will it still be justified
> in not throwing a slot-missing error?

No.  It certainly couldn't call SVUC without fabricating a slot definition for a slot which does not exist, and that would clearly be worse (for instance you could use its location and standard-instance-access to access ... what?).

One answer to the whole problem is (to make the MOP less horrid and) to have Dylan-style sealing.

--tim

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
[email protected]
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html