Re: [Sbcl-devel] case of excessive style warnings and overly verbose - undefined function

[Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...>]

On 29 September 2010 19:42, Mark H. David <mh...@yv...> wrote:

> In the following Lisp session log, which defines a function with just
> one little problem (undefined function), why is there so much
> verbosity, and two warnings about the same thing?

These are venerable and long-standing bugs, of which the
double-warning has been fixed since ...not sure when. Current SBCL
says:

* (defun foo (baz) (baz baz))
; in: LAMBDA NIL
;     (BAZ BAZ)
;
; caught STYLE-WARNING:
;   undefined function: BAZ
;
; compilation unit finished
;   Undefined function:
;     BAZ
;   caught 1 STYLE-WARNING condition

> Plus the function is "described", if you can call it that, in a most
> unfriendly manner.

The LAMBDA NIL is an unfortunate artifact of the way REPL compilation
is handled.

> Finally, it's announced that the "compilation unit is finished".
> Why's that needed?

For REPL compilation it is possibly pointless, but it comes from the
same framework being used for COMPILE and COMPILE-FILE.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus