[slime-devel] Re: SLIME User Survey

[Luke Gorrie]

Lynn Quam <quam at ai.sri.com> writes:

> .  I wish EDIT-DEFINITION would work better when the source file has
>    changed.  I suggest associating a non-trivial hash code (like a
>    secure hash function) with the s-expression for each definition to
>    be used in finding the definition in a modified source file.

In what cases does it cause you problems under CMUCL? I thought that
the source-file-cache hack pretty much took care of this.

In the current scheme our "hash" is just the first 256 characters of
the definition, for which we find the longest match. I don't see what
interesting cases a real hash function would handle that this doesn't,
and it would seem less robust wrt modifications to the definition
that's being looked up. Am I missing something?

One issue with the source cache is that it doesn't always get at the
source file soon enough. I think I can fix this. Meanwhile if you find
M-. going to the wrong place then doing `C-c C-k' on the buffer should
hopefully make it work well for the rest of your session.

> .  It would be nice if s-expressions for reader-macro conditionals
>    that evaluate to NIL in the running Lisp were displayed in a
>    different Emacs face.  SLIME aleady has slime-eval-feature-conditional
>    with evaluates the reader conditional wrt. *features* of running
>    Lisp.

This would be good. Right now I don't know of the right mechanism by
which to do it. Anyone have ideas?

-Luke