[slime-devel] Re: recording and compiling changed definitions

Helmut Eller heller at common-lisp.net
Mon Apr 9 20:25:32 UTC 2007

* Nikodemus Siivola [2007-04-09 22:01+0200] writes:

> Helmut Eller wrote:
>> Because it's more precise and needs less complicated code in Emacs.
>> Why re-implement half of the compiler in Emacs?
> Speaking as an SBCL developer: it makes sense for SBCL to track
> XREF information, and it /might/ make even sense to support "recompile
> definitions that depend on FOO", but I don't see any sense in SBCL
> scanning files and trying to figure out which bits have changed.

You don't need to generate code for those parts which haven't changed.
Isn't that very interesting information?  Wasn't there some hack from
Andreas Fuchs which used macroexpand hooks to find the changed bits?
It didn't use the editor.

> That is the key bit of information that is naturally in the editor.

I don't know about Vi but many editors can't be programmed as easily
as Emacs.  For those editors it's much easier if the hard work is done
by some external tool.


More information about the slime-devel mailing list