[slime-devel] Re: [slime-cvs] CVS update: slime/doc/slime.texi

[Luke Gorrie]

Helmut Eller <heller at common-lisp.net> writes:

> Luke Gorrie <luke at synap.se> writes:
> 
> > Cool. I added some notes about the new inspector. I wonder if we're
> > actually using the INSPECTOR argument to INSPECT-IN-EMACS anywhere?
> > Can we remove it, or?
> 
> I think it's used to dispatch to backend specific methods while still
> having a fallback method in the front end, e.g., we have methods for:
> 
>   inspect-for-emacs (object function) (inspector t) ; in swank.lisp
>   inspect-for-emacs (object function) (inspector lispworks-inspector)
> 
> The inspector argument is only used to select the method.  If we
> remove the inspector argument, then one method overwrites the other.

Even with the inspector argument, doesn't the backend-specific method
completely shadow the generic one? Maybe the idea is to fall back if
you decide to remove the backend-specific method?

> BTW, I'd like to remove cl-indent.el from SLIME, because nobody worked
> on it.  Any objections?

Not from me.

I was going to suggest that we remove metering.lisp but instead I made
a sweep through and tried to remove all the reader-conditional cruft
for Lisps other than CLISP and OpenMCL. There was a heck of a lot of
it so I might have made some mistakes.

Too bad I didn't think to do something like

  (setf *features* (list* :openmcl :clisp (remove :cmucl *features*)))

and then let the syntax highlighting show me which code was needed!