I'm trying to learn McCLIM using ccl, and I just noticed several compiler warnings during the load process. I remember that, way back when, these were a big concern. One set looks silly/simple enough that I think I'm qualified to submit a patch. To deal with some variables that get defvar'd in a different file (and a really minor typo): --- design.lisp.original 2011-01-23 10:13:13.000000000 -0600 +++ design.lisp 2011-01-23 11:50:01.000000000 -0600 @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ ;;;; Some Notes -;; The design design has a pitfall: +;; The design has a pitfall: ;; ;; As drawing is specified, a design of class opacity carries no color ;; and thus borrows its color from +foreground-ink+. So that @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ 0.0) (defun make-opacity (value) + (declare (special +everywhere+)) ; squash a compiler warning (setf value (clamp value 0 1)) ;defensive programming (cond ((= value 0) +transparent-ink+) ((= value 1) +everywhere+) ; used to say +foreground-ink+ @@ -669,7 +670,8 @@ design) (defmethod compose-in ((design design) (mask nowhere-mixin)) - (declare (ignore design mask)) + (declare (ignore design mask) + (special +nowhere+)) +nowhere+) ;;; IN-COMPOSITUM @@ -782,7 +784,8 @@ ;;;; (defmethod compose-out ((design design) (mask everywhere-mixin)) - (declare (ignore design mask)) + (declare (ignore design mask) + (special +nowhere+)) +nowhere+) (defmethod compose-out ((design design) (mask nowhere-mixin)) @@ -790,7 +793,8 @@ design) (defmethod compose-out ((design design) (mask color)) - (declare (ignore design mask)) + (declare (ignore design mask) + (special +nowhere+)) +nowhere+) (defmethod compose-out ((design design) (mask uniform-compositum)) =============================================================================== Well, AFAICT that didn't break anything...undertested newb code warning. I don't know how to handle the rest. Both graphics.lisp and design.lisp seem to have a very subtly different definition of (defmethod draw-design (medium (design rgb-image-design) &rest options &key (x 0) (y 0) &allow-other-keys) ... (They seem to have different return values). This is the first time I've knuckled down and started looking at the source code, so I don't have the foggiest notion which definition is correct. The defclass for standard-text-displayed-output-record in recording.lisp has many of its slots using :start-x and :start-y for :initarg's. This had to have been done on purpose, and it seems to make sense in that particular situation. But how to eliminate the compiler warnings? (I'm just going with the assumption that this is conforming in the first place). stream-input.lisp -- line 134, (defmethod stream-read-gesture :around specifies *input-wait-test* as one of the default arguments. It looks like (proclaim (special *input-wait-test*)) at some point is the right way to fix this one. But that seems pretty heavy-handed. *input-wait-handler* and *pointer-button-press-handler* have the same issue, in the same lambda list. (Then again, maybe just rearranging the load order in the ASD is the "correct" way to fix it). bezier.lisp and regions.lisp have conflicting definitions for (region-equal ((? point) (? point)) ... And it looks like line 782 in bezier.lisp where climi:with-medium-options is used before it was defined. When I exited and restarted emacs and re-ran (require :clim) (which very well may be the wrong way to load it), most of the warnings went away. I don't think there was any reason for it to rebuild things the first time, but I could be mistaken there. I'm using the 20101006 CVS snapshot distributed via quicklisp. Respectfully, James