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

>>>>> On Thu, 07 May 2026 18:17:03 +0530 (IST), Madhu (as enometh at meer dot net) said:
> 
> Are the implementation justified in ignoring s-v-u-c for standard
> slots?  I can't tell.

I think s-v-u-c should be called for standard slots as well.

> BTW on another note, if you elide the slot slot-2 from defclass foo,
> the code still works in lispworks, but all other implementations throw
> a slot-missing error.
> 
> 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?, ---Regards, Madhu

It can only call s-v-u-c if a slot-definition exists in the class.

You can define a method on cl:slot-missing if you want to handle this case
without signaling an error.  I would expect that to be portable.

-- 
Martin Simmons
LispWorks Ltd
http://www.lispworks.com/

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