--- Raymond Toy <toy@rtp.ericsson.se> wrote:
> >>>>> "James" == James Amundson <amundson@fnal.gov> writes:
>
> James> Anyway, I would really like to see us eliminate the
> various
> James> warning-provoking behaviors we have, including
> redefinitions. SBCL seems
> James> to be the pickiest Lisp implementation we have, so it
> would probably be
> James> the best place to start eliminating warnings.
>
> A while back, I did try to eliminate some of the warnings. I finally
> tired of doing that, mostly because there are multiple definitions
> for the same function in different files, but it was not clear if
> they
> did exactly the same thing. I just got tired of trying to decide
> which was right and whether it would work for the other places. :-(
Silly question - does the final image wind up with all of them somehow
wedged in there, or would all the routines use one without being aware
of it? I know we don't use CLOS - is there some other way this is kept
straight in the final image?
<wince> Sorry, I really should know that.
CY
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree