[slime-devel] Re: SLIME User Survey

[Lynn Quam]

Luke Gorrie replied:

>  
>  I'm thinking of robustness in the opposite sense: if I'm looking up
>  the definition of FOO, but FOO has been modified, then a hash won't
>  find it but a best-prefix-match search quite possibly will. Looking
>  for definitions that have been modified since compilation is fairly
>  common for me I think.

Yes, If the definition has been recompiled, and the preceeding part of
the buffer has been modified, we have the wrong buffer position.  This
is where the ZMACS (ZWEI) buffer sectionization was a winner.  The
question is how to limit the best-prefix-match search so that
alternative versions can be distinguished, but modifications can be
made to a definition and still be found.

Does the existing best-prefix-match search distinguish between
versions of the definition that are prefixed by reader conditionals
that fail for the current Lisp?  This is probably the situation that
annoys me the most: finding a definition that is impossible for the
current Lisp.
  
>  More ideas would be welcome. But hashing seems more sensitive to
>  changes in the sought-after definition than I'd like.

I agree, unless there is a way to "mark" the buffer position of a
recompiled definition in some manner that is insensitive to insertions
and/or deletions in the preceeding part of the buffer.