I have a library that provides `DEF-UNIMPLEMENTED` as a macro for defining stub functions. When you compile a file with unimplemented functions, you get a warning of the type `FOO:UNIMPLEMENTED-STUB` in my library `FOO`.
I'd like to put in an asdf system definition a file spec something like this:
``` (:file "file-with-stubs" :method (:around (o c) (handler-bind ((foo:unimplemented-stub #'(lambda (c) (print c) (muffle-warning c)) (call-next-method))) ``` but, of course, the package `foo` doesn't exist when this is read (although I could put `(asdf:load-system "foo")` upstream of the enclosing defsystem).
This isn't a case that's nicely consistent with Faré's hack for translating strings or keyword symbols, nor does it seem easy to use `find-symbol` for this purpose.
Thoughts?
thanks, r
Not sure why that took 8 days to post...
On 14 Jun 2018, at 12:50, Robert Goldman wrote:
I have a library that provides `DEF-UNIMPLEMENTED` as a macro for defining stub functions. When you compile a file with unimplemented functions, you get a warning of the type `FOO:UNIMPLEMENTED-STUB` in my library `FOO`.
I'd like to put in an asdf system definition a file spec something like this:
(:file "file-with-stubs" :method (:around (o c) (handler-bind ((foo:unimplemented-stub #'(lambda (c) (print c) (muffle-warning c)) (call-next-method)))but, of course, the package `foo` doesn't exist when this is read (although I could put `(asdf:load-system "foo")` upstream of the enclosing defsystem).
This isn't a case that's nicely consistent with Faré's hack for translating strings or keyword symbols, nor does it seem easy to use `find-symbol` for this purpose.
Thoughts?
thanks, r
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
I have a library that provides DEF-UNIMPLEMENTED as a macro for defining stub functions. When you compile a file with unimplemented functions, you get a warning of the type FOO:UNIMPLEMENTED-STUB in my library FOO.
I'd like to put in an asdf system definition a file spec something like this:
(:file "file-with-stubs" :method (:around (o c) (handler-bind ((foo:unimplemented-stub #'(lambda (c) (print c) (muffle-warning c)) (call-next-method)))
but, of course, the package foo doesn't exist when this is read (although I could put (asdf:load-system "foo") upstream of the enclosing defsystem).
This isn't a case that's nicely consistent with Faré's hack for translating strings or keyword symbols, nor does it seem easy to use find-symbol for this purpose.
You could still use FIND-SYMBOL: (handler-bind ((error (lambda (c) (when (typep c (find-symbol x :foo)))))) (a))
On 22 Jun 2018, at 23:55, Stas Boukarev wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
I have a library that provides DEF-UNIMPLEMENTED as a macro for defining stub functions. When you compile a file with unimplemented functions, you get a warning of the type FOO:UNIMPLEMENTED-STUB in my library FOO.
I'd like to put in an asdf system definition a file spec something like this:
(:file "file-with-stubs" :method (:around (o c) (handler-bind ((foo:unimplemented-stub #'(lambda (c) (print c) (muffle-warning c)) (call-next-method)))
but, of course, the package foo doesn't exist when this is read (although I could put (asdf:load-system "foo") upstream of the enclosing defsystem).
This isn't a case that's nicely consistent with Faré's hack for translating strings or keyword symbols, nor does it seem easy to use find-symbol for this purpose.
You could still use FIND-SYMBOL: (handler-bind ((error (lambda (c) (when (typep c (find-symbol x :foo)))))) (a))
That's a good point, and effectively what I ended up doing. But it's certainly not pleasing, because we end up doing our own type dispatch, on top of that which is built into CL with `handler-bind`. Still, this might be the best I can do.
thanks, r
Sorry for a late reply.
UIOP has these utilities that can help you: (uiop:find-symbol* :unimplemented-stub :foo nil) (uiop:match-condition-p #(unimplemented-stub foo) (make-condition 'simple-warning)) (setf uiop:*uninteresting-conditions* '(#(unimplemented-stub foo)))
Also, ASDF has the around-compile hook that is the recommended place to locally set those things: (defun ignoring-unimplemented-sub (f) (let ((uiop:*uninteresting-conditions* '(#(unimplemented-stub foo)))) (funcall f))) (defsystem ... :around-compile ignoring-unimplemented-sub ...)
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Do NOT question authority — they don't know either.
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:41 AM Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
On 22 Jun 2018, at 23:55, Stas Boukarev wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:13 PM Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
I have a library that provides DEF-UNIMPLEMENTED as a macro for defining stub functions. When you compile a file with unimplemented functions, you get a warning of the type FOO:UNIMPLEMENTED-STUB in my library FOO.
I'd like to put in an asdf system definition a file spec something like this:
(:file "file-with-stubs" :method (:around (o c) (handler-bind ((foo:unimplemented-stub #'(lambda (c) (print c) (muffle-warning c)) (call-next-method)))
but, of course, the package foo doesn't exist when this is read (although I could put (asdf:load-system "foo") upstream of the enclosing defsystem).
This isn't a case that's nicely consistent with Faré's hack for translating strings or keyword symbols, nor does it seem easy to use find-symbol for this purpose.
You could still use FIND-SYMBOL: (handler-bind ((error (lambda (c) (when (typep c (find-symbol x :foo)))))) (a))
That's a good point, and effectively what I ended up doing. But it's certainly not pleasing, because we end up doing our own type dispatch, on top of that which is built into CL with handler-bind. Still, this might be the best I can do.
thanks, r
-
Faré -
Robert Goldman -
Stas Boukarev