[Sbcl-commits] CVS: sbcl/src/code condition.lisp,1.80,1.81

[William H. N. <wn...@us...>]

Update of /cvsroot/sbcl/sbcl/src/code
In directory sc8-pr-cvs8.sourceforge.net:/tmp/cvs-serv25126/src/code

Modified Files:
	condition.lisp 
Log Message:
1.0.7.13: Mistakes should be fun, error messages should be beautiful.
	take one ~% down, replace it with ~_, several hundred 
		vintage error message strings in the repository...


Index: condition.lisp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/sbcl/sbcl/src/code/condition.lisp,v
retrieving revision 1.80
retrieving revision 1.81
diff -u -d -r1.80 -r1.81
--- condition.lisp	29 Apr 2007 21:57:40 -0000	1.80
+++ condition.lisp	4 Jul 2007 00:15:28 -0000	1.81
@@ -755,13 +755,14 @@
                               (or (position #\Newline string :from-end t) -1)
                               1))))
            (file-position-or-nil-for-error error-stream pos))
-         (format stream
-                 "READER-ERROR ~@[at ~W ~]~
-                  ~@[(line ~W~]~@[, column ~W) ~]~
-                  on ~S:~%~?"
-                 pos lineno colno error-stream
-                 (reader-error-format-control condition)
-                 (reader-error-format-arguments condition)))))))
+         (pprint-logical-block (stream nil)
+           (format stream
+                   "READER-ERROR ~@[at ~W ~]~
+                    ~@[(line ~W~]~@[, column ~W) ~]~
+                    on ~S:~2I~_~?"
+                   pos lineno colno error-stream
+                   (reader-error-format-control condition)
+                   (reader-error-format-arguments condition))))))))
 
 ;;;; special SBCL extension conditions
 
@@ -811,7 +812,7 @@
 ;;; unimplemented and (2) unintentionally just screwed up somehow.
 ;;; (Before this condition was defined, test code tried to deal with
 ;;; this by checking for FBOUNDP, but that didn't work reliably. In
-;;; sbcl-0.7.0, a a package screwup left the definition of
+;;; sbcl-0.7.0, a package screwup left the definition of
 ;;; LOAD-FOREIGN in the wrong package, so it was unFBOUNDP even on
 ;;; architectures where it was supposed to be supported, and the
 ;;; regression tests cheerfully passed because they assumed that