From: Jeremy B. <jh...@it...> - 2007-01-19 05:18:20
|
When calling compile-file with :verbose nil (or (setf *compile-verbose* nil)), the warning/error reporting is inconsistent between semantic problems and syntax errors. In particular, while a semantic problem is clearly reported even with :verbose nil, a syntax error is not explained. Compare: ------------------------------------------------------------ (compile-file "/tmp/good-syntax.lisp" :verbose nil) ; compiling (DEFUN BAZ ...) ; file: /tmp/good-syntax.lisp ; in: DEFUN BAZ ; (QUUX FOOBAR) ; ; caught WARNING: ; undefined variable: FOOBAR ; ------------------------------------------------------------ to: ------------------------------------------------------------ CL-USER> (compile-file "/tmp/bad-syntax.lisp" :verbose nil) ; ; compilation unit aborted ; caught 1 fatal ERROR condition ------------------------------------------------------------ With :verbose t, compile-file gives a much clearer explanation of the syntax problem: ------------------------------------------------------------ CL-USER> (compile-file "/tmp/bad-syntax.lisp" :verbose t) ; compiling file "/tmp/bad-syntax.lisp" (written 02 JAN 2007 01:20:44 PM): ; ; compilation unit aborted ; caught 1 fatal ERROR condition compilation aborted because of fatal error: READ failure in COMPILE-FILE at character 0: end of file on #<SB-SYS:FD-STREAM for "file /tmp/bad-syntax.lisp" {10036A2CC1}> ; /tmp/bad-syntax.fasl written ; compilation finished in 0:00:00 ------------------------------------------------------------ It would be helpful if compile-file went ahead and reported syntactic problems in full, even with :verbose nil. Thanks, Jeremy |
From: Juho S. <js...@ik...> - 2007-03-04 23:56:25
|
Jeremy Brown <jh...@it...> writes: > It would be helpful if compile-file went ahead and reported syntactic > problems in full, even with :verbose nil. True. Thanks for the suggestion, this is fixed in 1.0.3.28. -- Juho Snellman |