> Probably a better fix would be to refactor so any (^macros) (which is where > I get my warnings, when they appear in rules supplied as defaults with the > class definition) are defined first so they will be available: > > (progn <define macros> (prog1 <define class> <define methods on class))
Makes sense -- but I am quite busy, too, at the moment, so this will have to wait :-) > Another thing I want to do is change those (^macros) to be ^macros (symbol > macros expanding to the same thing) now that they are zero-argument macros Thought about that, too. But ... > Anyway, I have an app to write, this interim patch is fine. exactly :-) > ps. What /were/ the style warnings? k Real warnings, actually they were, one per slot plus one for the shared-initialize, telling me that there are methods specializing on an unknown class. I tend to take those seriously, because usually they point to a typo somewhere. So does SLIME by highlighting the defmd form in red everytime I compile for the first time. Now I get style warnings for redefining stuff (probably the eval-now! executes stuff twice), but it is much easier to ignore those than the real warnings about an undefined class. Peter _______________________________________________ cells-devel site list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cells-devel
