[armedbear-devel] Using named classes for primitives

Erik Huelsmann ehuels at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 15:48:42 UTC 2009


On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Muscar <muscar at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been messing around with the code. I've managed to load the fasl,
>> but I think we're missing some initializations because I get the
>> following error:
>>
>> ERROR placeholder called with arguments:
>> #<UNDEFINED-FUNCTION SYSTEM::ENSURE-AVAILABLE-SYMBOLS {E5F46E}>
>>
>> Here's a full stack trace:
>>
>> org.armedbear.lisp.ConditionThrowable: java.lang.Error
>>        at org.armedbear.lisp.Primitives$70.execute(Primitives.java:1459)
>
> OT, but not too much: if we used named classes for primitives we could
> get more meaningful stack traces (say, JCALL instead of
> Primitives$XY). I.e. instead of
>
> private static final Primitive xyz = new Primitive(...) { ... };
>
> we could use
>
> private static class JCALL extends Primitive {
>    JCALL(...) { super(...); }
>    ...
> }
> private static final Primitive xyz = new JCALL(...);
>
> a bit more verbose, but worth the effort imho.

I think so too. However, there are a few too many of these to start
changing them over now. Or does anybody feel like hacking up a perl
script to get it done? :-)

Bye,


Erik.




More information about the armedbear-devel mailing list