From: Cyrus H. <ch...@bo...> - 2012-05-17 04:34:24
|
I'm always annoyed by messages like: Implicitly creating new generic function FOO. scrolling by in my slime window. WTF is FOO? Well, the problem is that FOO is usually in the then-current package and so the package identifier isn't printed out. The following patch causes the package name to be printed in the STYLE-WARNING. Any objections to seeing this in the tree post-freeze? thanks, Cyrus diff --git a/src/code/condition.lisp b/src/code/condition.lisp index 3e7e84e..d0b7013 100644 --- a/src/code/condition.lisp +++ b/src/code/condition.lisp @@ -1004,8 +1004,9 @@ (define-condition implicit-generic-function-warning (style-warning) ((name :initarg :name :reader implicit-generic-function-name)) (:report (lambda (condition stream) - (format stream "~@<Implicitly creating new generic function ~S.~:@>" - (implicit-generic-function-name condition))))) + (let ((*package* (find-package :keyword))) + (format stream "~@<Implicitly creating new generic function ~S.~:@>" + (implicit-generic-function-name condition)))))) (define-condition extension-failure (reference-condition simple-error) ()) |
From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2012-05-17 07:19:28
|
On 17 May 2012 07:34, Cyrus Harmon <ch...@bo...> wrote: > diff --git a/src/code/condition.lisp b/src/code/condition.lisp > index 3e7e84e..d0b7013 100644 > --- a/src/code/condition.lisp > +++ b/src/code/condition.lisp > @@ -1004,8 +1004,9 @@ (define-condition implicit-generic-function-warning (style-warning) > ((name :initarg :name :reader implicit-generic-function-name)) > (:report > (lambda (condition stream) > - (format stream "~@<Implicitly creating new generic function ~S.~:@>" > - (implicit-generic-function-name condition))))) > + (let ((*package* (find-package :keyword))) > + (format stream "~@<Implicitly creating new generic function ~S.~:@>" > + (implicit-generic-function-name condition)))))) > > (define-condition extension-failure (reference-condition simple-error) > ()) +1 Cheers, -- nikodemus |
From: Attila L. <att...@gm...> - 2012-08-15 19:41:09
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> + (let ((*package* (find-package :keyword))) + (format >> stream "~@<Implicitly creating new generic function ~S.~:@>" + >> (implicit-generic-function-name condition)))))) >> >> (define-condition extension-failure (reference-condition >> simple-error) ()) > > +1 for the record, i had a better version of this patch since 2011-01-02 in my branch. http://dwim.hu/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=sbcl;a=commitdiff;h=62c04fb6ecf49b15514bbce50da7223fed4ec958 - - (format stream "~@<Implicitly creating new generic function ~S.~:@>" + (format stream "~@<Implicitly creating new generic function ~ + ~/sb-impl::print-symbol-with-prefix/.~:@>" i didn't keep it as a secret in the short time that passed since then. and there are other non-controversial patches that may be cherry picked. e.g. this one: http://dwim.hu/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=sbcl;a=commitdiff;h=69fc5a0a279ce55ced4cfecfa8ca6694ca0adabd others i have left to die out due merging headaches with the diverging master tree, like the skip-slot restart in describe-object that helped dealing with missbehaving svuc methods. sorry for the whining tone, but it's somewhat disappointing... - -- attila Notice the erosion of your (digital) freedom, and do something about it! PGP: 2FA1 A9DC 9C1E BA25 A59C 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 OTR XMPP: 8647EEAC EA30FEEF E1B55146 573E52EE 21B1FF06 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQK/s7AAoJEDOYBgI+x3RaxRYH/2ukO/5+lCv9lb6g5aXQiDt/ adv2yQbRpMRnYNe2a2Vl909aNPZYev0th69losGk0Q9j9KOXNoBnHJo9lrxRD493 VCUAsENZF2jS8UsBw4hV1+Pig4Odo3ctrJTomeCSuSo5PK6E5RdprGFWoOkrQdeW ugfCTxSifpjsX1UqjxHcXJffxw+b8VKGkd8E8MUIR+9R9qqLp/QfGdPENsXlWKU7 +E5mK8b++mwe3SQ3Uumw5p9eidJKcO7fmlt871HlQbym3MTjdt2j0vRESsgJvXS3 zqQaRuwo2EfYD7V4G7ildEFM6avyYZRkUIsWhMmSskJxLGi+DhV9POcucM0QwpM= =B1rN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |