From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2007-12-24 13:52:49
|
On Dec 24, 2007 9:09 AM, Nicolas Neuss <ne...@ma...> wrote: As of very recently (1.0.12.38), the signalled condition is SB-EXT:IMPLICIT-GENERIC-FUNCTION-WARNING (subclass of STYLE-WARNING) so you can indeed selectively muffle it by doing (handler-bind ((sb-ext:implicit-generic-function-warning #'muffle-warning)) (load "foo.lisp")) in eg. an ASDF around-method. Unfortunately, there is not as of yet a way to do this per-file using the MUFFLE-CONDITION proclamations, since it applies only to compile-time conditions -- but that may change (see list archives for the earlier inconclusive discussion). > ;;; method definitions - some of them are specializations of already > ;;; existing generic functions, some of them are more for local use. At > ;;; least for the moment I do not want to decide, if these should be > ;;; functions or generic functions. I don't understand. The moment you write a DEFMETHOD you've obviously decided in favor of using a generic function. > The macro has the problem, that highlighting probably will not work as > well, and maybe also the editor will not be able to locate the function > definition as well, especially if something in the file has changed. Editor smarts about DEFOO macros are indeed a bit problematic, but source location problems should be IMO considered bugs in either Slime or SB-INTROSPECT. Merry Christmas, -- Nikodemus |