From gwking at metabang.com  Mon Sep  1 17:18:42 2008
From: gwking at metabang.com (Gary King)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:18:42 -0400
Subject: [lift-devel] Slime warnings
In-Reply-To: <b381ea40808161729h233e809dl7d12fae7b004e756@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b381ea40808161729h233e809dl7d12fae7b004e756@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47840D26-35A8-4CF0-99D8-A17749390DB3@metabang.com>

Hi Slava,

I actually thought that this was fixed and I certainly want it to be.  
Which lisp implementation is exhibiting this behavior?

thanks,

On Aug 16, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Vyacheslav Akhmechet wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Compiling (and recompiling) tests defined with Lift cause Slime to
> show high level warnings (so that it opens another window). It's
> rather difficult to develop with these windows showing up. Is there a
> way to fix this other than muffling Slime warnings? The CL testing
> frameworks review article[1] also brings up this issue with Lift.
> Considering that Slime chooses the warnings of this level to pop up
> warning windows by default, should Lift macros compile to code that
> doesn't produce such warnings, if possible?
>
> Thanks,
> - Slava
>
> [1] http://aperiodic.net/phil/archives/Geekery/notes-on-lisp-testing-frameworks.html
> _______________________________________________
> lift-devel mailing list
> lift-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lift-devel

--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM






From coffeemug at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 19:22:27 2008
From: coffeemug at gmail.com (Vyacheslav Akhmechet)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:22:27 -0400
Subject: [lift-devel] Slime warnings
In-Reply-To: <47840D26-35A8-4CF0-99D8-A17749390DB3@metabang.com>
References: <b381ea40808161729h233e809dl7d12fae7b004e756@mail.gmail.com>
	<47840D26-35A8-4CF0-99D8-A17749390DB3@metabang.com>
Message-ID: <b381ea40809011222t14cdb8f2kb67a34d50950b7d1@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:
> I actually thought that this was fixed and I certainly want it to be. Which
> lisp implementation is exhibiting this behavior?
I'm using SBCL 1.0.11 (on Ubuntu) and Slime 2007-12-02.


From gwking at metabang.com  Tue Sep  2 13:39:07 2008
From: gwking at metabang.com (Gary King)
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:39:07 -0400
Subject: [lift-devel] Slime warnings
In-Reply-To: <b381ea40809011222t14cdb8f2kb67a34d50950b7d1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b381ea40808161729h233e809dl7d12fae7b004e756@mail.gmail.com>
	<47840D26-35A8-4CF0-99D8-A17749390DB3@metabang.com>
	<b381ea40809011222t14cdb8f2kb67a34d50950b7d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65F617AD-8BDB-43A8-A901-335551353736@metabang.com>

I haven't pushed the changes yet, but I think I have a fix that works  
in SBCL 1.0.20 (and fails to work in SBCL 1.0.12). It involves using

> (defmacro muffle-redefinition-warnings (&body body)
>   "Evaluate the body so that redefinition warnings will not be
> signaled. (suppored in Allegro, Clozure CL, CLisp, and Lispworks)"
>   #+allegro
>   `(excl:without-redefinition-warnings
>      , at body)
>   #+(or ccl mcl)
>   `(let ((ccl::*warn-if-redefine* nil)
> 	 ;;?? FIXME not sure if this should be here or not...
> 	 (ccl::*record-source-file* nil))
>      , at body)
>   #+clisp
>   `(let ((custom:*suppress-check-redefinition* t))
>     , at body)
>   #+lispworks
>   `(let ((lw:*handle-warn-on-redefinition* :quiet))
>     , at body)
>   #+sbcl
>   ;; from http://www.sbcl.info/manual/Controlling-Verbosity.html
>   `(locally (declare (sb-ext:muffle-conditions sb-ext:compiler-note
> 					       sb-ext::style-warning))
>     , at body)
>   #-(or allegro ccl clisp mcl sbcl)
>   `(progn , at body))
>

that I've stolen from metatilities-base. The earlier versions of SBCL  
don't seem to respect the declaration. I'm looking into this.


On Sep 1, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Vyacheslav Akhmechet wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Gary King <gwking at metabang.com> wrote:
>> I actually thought that this was fixed and I certainly want it to  
>> be. Which
>> lisp implementation is exhibiting this behavior?
> I'm using SBCL 1.0.11 (on Ubuntu) and Slime 2007-12-02.
> _______________________________________________
> lift-devel mailing list
> lift-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lift-devel

--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM