[slime-devel] (slime-compilation-finished) doesnt help solving stated goal.

[Madhu]

* Helmut Eller <m2hbge9yqm.fsf at common-lisp.net> :
Wrote on Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:51:45 +0200:

|> - Implementations like lw and ccl refuse to find source via
|>   M-. (sldb-`v', etc) unless the file is compiled  --- (C-M-x or C-c C-c
|>   will not cut it).
|
| That's true for C-M-x but not for C-c C-c.  Both CCL and Lispworks
| handle C-c C-c and C-c C-k similarly: in both cases we use COMPILE-FILE
| but for C-c C-c we give an extra parameter to say from which file it
| came from.

I meant exactly what I wrote.  It does not work with C-c C-c.  CCL goes
off goes looking for a logical file.newest. lw appends (instead of
replacing) an entry with wrong dspec info that shows up in the xref
buffer, and can mostly find the file correctly (but not the location).

|>   So if one wants M-. to work with slime, one is
|>   forced to compile that form in a file and load it, even if one knows
|>   that large parts of the file contain errors and will not be work or be
|>   called.
|
| So what are you criticizing? that you need to use C-c C-k or that you
| can't be bothered to press y?

I wish to use slime-compile-and-load-file to compile and load and a
file.  Period.  If I just want to load a file, I'd use slime-load-file.
If I just wanted to see warnings/errors I'd use `slime-compile-file'.


|> I don't disagree with what you said, but this, (like other features)
|> does not pass the cost/benefit.
|
| You mean, pressing y on false positives is more distracting than landing
| in the debugger on true positives?  Or what "feature" are you taking
| about?

I won't call it a feature again---but my point was it falls short of
intended goal.  There is a also a cost for the maintainer to support it
correctly, and for the user to work around it when encountering
situations the maintainer couldnt imagine where the behaviour is
incorrect.  And the cost of discussing it here.

--
Madhu