Hi,
I'm new on this list. I don't know if the following problem was already reported.
With Linux 2.6 (x86-32), SBCL 0.9.13 and Slime CVS (from today), I get the error below.
Is there a compatibility problem between SBCL and Slime in this case ? (SBCL release vs Slime CVS)
error while parsing arguments to DESTRUCTURING-BIND: invalid number of elements in ((1545 . 2005) (1988 . 2003) (1660 . 1950)) to satisfy lambda list ((SWANK-BACKEND::START . SWANK-BACKEND::END)): exactly 1 expected, but 3 found [Condition of type SB-KERNEL::ARG-COUNT-ERROR]
Restarts: 0: [RETRY] Retry performing #<ASDF:COMPILE-OP NIL {B1A5C69}> on #<IRONCLAD-SYSTEM::IRONCLAD-SOURCE-FILE "common" {C51DBF1}>. 1: [ACCEPT] Continue, treating #<ASDF:COMPILE-OP NIL {B1A5C69}> on #<IRONCLAD-SYSTEM::IRONCLAD-SOURCE-FILE "common" {C51DBF1}> as having been successful. 2: [ABORT] Abort SLIME compilation. 3: [ABORT-REQUEST] Abort handling SLIME request. 4: [ABORT] Exit debugger, returning to top level.
Backtrace: 0: (SWANK-BACKEND::SOURCE-PATH-SOURCE-POSITION (0 1 3 4) NIL #<HASH-TABLE :TEST EQ :COUNT 31 {BCB2321}>) 1: (SWANK-BACKEND::SOURCE-PATH-FILE-POSITION (7 1 3 4) #P"/usr/share/common-lisp/source/ironclad/common.lisp") 2: (SWANK-BACKEND::LOCATE-COMPILER-NOTE #P"/usr/share/common-lisp/source/ironclad/common.lisp" (7 1 3 4) " (LDB (BYTE 8 0) IRONCLAD::UB)") 3: (SWANK-BACKEND::COMPILER-NOTE-LOCATION #<SB-C::COMPILER-ERROR-CONTEXT >) 4: (SWANK-BACKEND::SIGNAL-COMPILER-CONDITION #<SB-INT:SIMPLE-COMPILER-NOTE {BCA1AB9}> #<SB-C::COMPILER-ERROR-CONTEXT >) 5: (SWANK-BACKEND::HANDLE-NOTIFICATION-CONDITION #<SB-INT:SIMPLE-COMPILER-NOTE {BCA1AB9}>) 6: (SIGNAL #<SB-INT:SIMPLE-COMPILER-NOTE {BCA1AB9}>) [..]
slime-devel@frederic.jolliton.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm new on this list. I don't know if the following problem was already reported.
With Linux 2.6 (x86-32), SBCL 0.9.13 and Slime CVS (from today), I get the error below.
Is there a compatibility problem between SBCL and Slime in this case ? (SBCL release vs Slime CVS)
No (the same thing would happen with any version of SBCL, and also CMUCL). It's an issue with compiler notes generated for source code that was created with #., e.g.
#.(loop repeat collect `(progn (lambda (x y) (+ x 'a))))