Christophe Rhodes <csr21@...> writes:
> Lars Brinkhoff <lars@...> writes:
>> Lars Brinkhoff <lars@...> writes:
>>> Is this the preferred way to muffle the style warning mentioned in the
>>> subject line?
>>> (locally (declare (sb-ext:muffle-conditions style-warning))
>>> (defun foo (&optional x &key y) (+ x y)))
>> If not, what is?
> Well, my preferred way would be not to have &optional and &key in the
> same lambda list. Failing that, your form is what I would suggest.
> If you are worried about style-warning being too coarse a class to
> muffle, even for just the lambda list (because you can get your
> style-warnings for the body back by doing
> (declare (muffle-conditions style-warning))
> (defun foo (&optional x &key y) ; bletch
> (declare (unmuffle-conditions style-warning))
> (+ x y)))
Whoops. There was an end to this sentence planned when I started
If you are worried about style-warning being too coarse a class to
muffle, then thoughts on a sensible hierarchy of style-warning
conditions that can be documented and exported from an extension
package are appreciated.