Quesstion about Alt-. navigation to function definitions

[Jeffrey Cunningham]

On 10/30/2013 12:21 PM, Jeff Cunningham wrote:
> (describe 'cl-ppcre:regex-apropos) 

This is really strange. As an experiment I just created a dirt-simple 
source file named "test1.lisp" in an isolated directory.

(require :cl-ppcre)
(use-package :cl-ppcre)
(describe 'cl-ppcre:regex-apropos)

When I compile and run this I get the following:

; compiling file "/home/jcunningham/slime/test1.lisp" (written 30 OCT 
2013 12:50:50 PM):

; /home/jcunningham/slime/test1.fasl written
; compilation finished in 0:00:00.002
CL-PPCRE:REGEX-APROPOS
   [symbol]

REGEX-APROPOS names a compiled function:
   Lambda-list: (REGEX &OPTIONAL PACKAGES &KEY (CASE-INSENSITIVE T))
   Derived type: (FUNCTION (T &OPTIONAL T &KEY (:CASE-INSENSITIVE T))
                  (VALUES &OPTIONAL))
   Documentation:
     Similar to the standard function APROPOS but returns a list of all
     symbols which match the regular expression REGEX.  If CASE-INSENSITIVE
     is true and REGEX isn't already a scanner, a case-insensitive scanner
     is used.
*Source file: /home/jcunningham/quest/robom/plotwave.lisp*

This is a fresh slime session started in a new emacs. The file it is 
pointing to is something I haven't been working with for more than a 
week and most definitely does NOT contain regex-apropos by any package 
name. But it does contain a defpackage, which looks like this:

(require 'cl-fad)
(require 'cl-extra)
(require 'cl-ppcre)
(require 'quaternion)
(require 'graham))
(defpackage #:cnc-user (:use :cl :quaternion :cl-extra :graham :cl-fad 
:cl-ppcre))
(in-package :cnc-user)


It would appear that somehow when I last compiled this piece of code it 
modified something persistently for slime so that it now thinks - from 
any session I start - that functions in these packages have source code 
located in this file. The functions are found by SBCL because they do 
work. It is Slime that is going wrong here.

I see that I was using the 'cl-ppcre designation for the package that 
you say is not legal Common Lisp. I have no idea how that would affect 
things. I will change this in the future, but I am at a loss to see how 
to get back to the behavior Alt-. once had.

I am running SBCL 1.1.11 on this machine, and  SLIME 2013-06-26

Regards,
--Jeff


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/slime-devel/attachments/20131030/b8aab691/attachment.html>