[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I'm not sure if this is a bug or not. In question is whether or not a > call to an around method whose definition does not contain > CALL-NEXT-METHOD, and for which there's no corresponding primary > method should be an error
The spec says, in section 7.6.6.2: In standard method combination, if there is an applicable method but no applicable primary method, an error is signaled. -- Rahul Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
