From aed39f73c876b2dadb84f07358ebe655e437b6de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: espen Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:16:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed typo --- gffi/virtual-slots.lisp | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gffi/virtual-slots.lisp b/gffi/virtual-slots.lisp index 6551210..e2802c7 100644 --- a/gffi/virtual-slots.lisp +++ b/gffi/virtual-slots.lisp @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ ;; TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE ;; SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -;; $Id: virtual-slots.lisp,v 1.3 2006-08-16 12:09:03 espen Exp $ +;; $Id: virtual-slots.lisp,v 1.4 2006-09-05 13:16:18 espen Exp $ (in-package "GFFI") @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ (error 'unreadable-slot :name (slot-definition-name slotd) :instance object)) (let ((reader-function (call-next-method))) (cond - ;; Don't create an wrapper to signal unbound value + ;; Don't create wrapper to signal unbound value ((not signal-unbound-p) reader-function) ;; An explicit boundp function has been supplied @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ ;; In CLISP and SBCL (0.9.15 or newler) a class may not have been ;; finalized when update-slots are called. So to avoid the possibility -;; of finalize-instance beeing called recursivly we have to delay the +;; of finalize-instance being called recursivly we have to delay the ;; initialization of slot functions until after an instance has been ;; created. #?(or (sbcl>= 0 9 15) (featurep :clisp)) @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ ;;; To determine if a slot should be initialized with the initform, ;;; CLISP checks whether it is unbound or not. This doesn't work with -;;; virtual slots which does not have an unbound state, so we have to +;;; virtual slots that does not have an unbound state, so we have to ;;; implement initform initialization in a way similar to how it is ;;; done in PCL. #+clisp -- 2.11.0