On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 08:50:49AM -0500, Rob MacLachlan wrote:
> Unfortunately, dead code notes are rather heuristic in nature. We usually
> don't complain about deleting code. [...]
> I don't know of any way to fix this problem other using a discipline of
> *not* replicating code in macroexpansions. Usually it is due to laziness,
> though there are some cases where the duplication is really required.
> Likely defmethod could be changed.
Thanks for this. In the meantime, I've checked in the silencer (wrapping
it up inside (locally (optimize (inhibit-warnings 3)) ...), but with
feelings of nausea as I did so; fortunately, I believe that this is
indeed one of the areas of PCL scheduled for demolition; I believe
Pierre Mai measured the effect of the macrolet "optimization" around
call-next-method to be next to null. So with luck all the symptoms can
be removed at the same time :)
On a more general level, I think it would be nice to have finer-grained
control on the messages that Python emits; I find that I rarely want to
inhibit WARNINGs, that sometimes the STYLE-WARNINGs that SBCL emits are
annoying (but most of the time they're useful); that the notes that are
emitted are much more variable in their usefulness... not that I have
any terribly clear ideas on how to achieve this in a nice way.
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%") (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)