How do ASDF developers using emacs with SLIME deal with doing meta-dot (meta-.) on function names in ASDF sources. Out of the box, mostly when I meta-. just goes to one big top-level form that starts like this
(with-upgradability () (define-condition invalid-source-registry (invalid-configuration warning)
Thanks for clues, -Mark
On 15 Jul 2019, at 18:27, Mark H. David wrote:
How do ASDF developers using emacs with SLIME deal with doing meta-dot (meta-.) on function names in ASDF sources. Out of the box, mostly when I meta-. just goes to one big top-level form that starts like this
(with-upgradability () (define-condition invalid-source-registry (invalid-configuration warning)
Thanks for clues, -Mark
One answer to that is that I do the following before I start debugging, to avoid debugging the big concatenated ASDF file:
``` (defun debug-asdf () (asdf:load-system :uiop :force t) (dolist (c (asdf::required-components :asdf/defsystem :keep-component 'asdf:cl-source-file)) (load (asdf:component-pathname c)))) ```
However, that only gets us to the nearest `with-upgradability` macro invocation in the real source file, rather than in `build/asdf.lisp`.
I'm not sure how to answer your further question, because I think the answer might depend on the implementation you are using.
I think slime outsources to the implementation how to find a function definition, but I'm not an expert on SLIME internals.
Allegro's emacs lisp interface had a thing where it would ask the lisp environment which *file* held various definitions, and would then search for it based on some secret sauce involving `excl::define-parser` or something like that.
I'd have to know more about SLIME to give a better answer. Maybe someone else can chime in?
Seems a crosspost to SLIME-devel could be in order, right?
----- Original message ----- From: Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info To: "Mark H. David" mhd@yv.org Cc: ASDF-devel asdf-devel@common-lisp.net Subject: Re: slime meta-dot in ASDF sources Date: Monday, July 15, 2019 5:13 PM
On 15 Jul 2019, at 18:27, Mark H. David wrote:
How do ASDF developers using emacs with SLIME deal with doing meta-dot (meta-.) on function names in ASDF sources. Out of the box, mostly when I meta-. just goes to one big top-level form that starts like this
(with-upgradability () (define-condition invalid-source-registry (invalid-configuration warning)
Thanks for clues, -Mark
One answer to that is that I do the following before I start debugging, to avoid debugging the big concatenated ASDF file:
`(defun debug-asdf () (asdf:load-system :uiop :force t) (dolist (c (asdf::required-components :asdf/defsystem :keep-component 'asdf:cl-source-file)) (load (asdf:component-pathname c)))) ` However, that only gets us to the nearest `with-upgradability` macro invocation in the real source file, rather than in `build/asdf.lisp`.
I'm not sure how to answer your further question, because I think the answer might depend on the implementation you are using.
I think slime outsources to the implementation how to find a function definition, but I'm not an expert on SLIME internals.
Allegro's emacs lisp interface had a thing where it would ask the lisp environment which *file* held various definitions, and would then search for it based on some secret sauce involving `excl::define-parser` or something like that.
I'd have to know more about SLIME to give a better answer. Maybe someone else can chime in?
-
Mark H. David -
Robert Goldman