From: Sam Steingold
Subject: no-applicable-method & no-next-method
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 03:43:47 +0000
Message-ID: <uk748gyz0.fsf@gnu.org>

the above generic functions are specified to "signal an error of type
error."  is it OK to signal an implementation-defined error type
derived from the type ERROR?

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
Flying is not dangerous; crashing is.

From: Barry Margolin
Subject: Re: no-applicable-method & no-next-method
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:01:00 +0000
Message-ID: <barmar-AB185D.23010003012004@netnews.attbi.com>

In article <·············@gnu.org>, Sam Steingold <···@gnu.org> wrote:

> the above generic functions are specified to "signal an error of type
> error."  is it OK to signal an implementation-defined error type
> derived from the type ERROR?

Whenever the spec says "error of type XXX", it includes any subtypes as 
well.  The point is that the programmer can be sure he catches the error 
by establishing a handler for the specified type.

-- 
Barry Margolin, ······@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA