GNU bug report logs - #77123
29.1; call-next-method

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#77123: closed (29.1; call-next-method)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 21:51:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:50:37 -0400
with message-id <jwva59cwx9h.fsf-monnier+emacs <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: 29.1; call-next-method
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #77123,
regarding 29.1; call-next-method
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
77123: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=77123
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Christopher Stacy <cstacy <at> dtpq.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Cc: Eric Ludlam <zappo <at> gnu.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: 29.1; call-next-method
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:20:38 -0400

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

In GNU Emacs 29.1 (build 1, x86_64-apple-darwin20.6.0, Carbon Version
164 AppKit 2022.7) of 2023-08-08 built on Mac-1691499221282.local

eieio-version:  1.4

cl-call-next-method is not calling all the methods I expected.
It does call the methods in the direct superclasses, but it seems to be 
skipping all the indirect ones.

For a subclass FOO of A, B, a call-next-method from an instance of FOO 
will correctly call the  A and B methods. But if for example superclass 
A has mixins X and Y, neither the X or Y methods will be called. These 
are just primary methods. None of the inherited superclass methods are 
being run by call-next-method.

Attached is an example test program,
including test results. There are two
versions: one for Emacs Lisp,
and one is for Common Lisp (CLOS).
CL does it correctly (of course),
but EL gets the wrong answer.

I tested with two different CLOS implementations,
just to make sure I'm not crazy.

The files are identical except for
the compatibility preamble and results,
so you can compare them easily.
TEST#1 illustrates the case where things work right.
The differing answer is just in TEST#2.

Thanks for looking into this!

[simple-test.el (text/plain, attachment)]

[simple-test.lisp (text/plain, attachment)]

[Message part 6 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: cstacy <at> dtpq.com
Cc: Eric Ludlam <zappo <at> gnu.org>, 77123-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 29.1; call-next-method
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:50:37 -0400

> It worked 30.1
> You can close it

Thanks, closing,


        Stefan

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.