here's the docstring for list-callers:
-------------------------------------------------- List the callers of FUNCTION-NAME. This function is like WHO-CALLS except that it is expected to use lower-level means. Whereas WHO-CALLS is usually implemented with special compiler support, LIST-CALLERS is usually implemented by groveling for constants in function objects throughout the heap.
The return value is as for WHO-CALLS. --------------------------------------------------
anybody remember why we make this distinction?
FWIW, it sounds to me like a distinction made for different lisps; some have better support than others for this sort of thing, n'est pas?
On Sep 18, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Marco Baringer wrote:
here's the docstring for list-callers:
List the callers of FUNCTION-NAME. This function is like WHO-CALLS except that it is expected to use lower-level means. Whereas WHO-CALLS is usually implemented with special compiler support, LIST-CALLERS is usually implemented by groveling for constants in function objects throughout the heap.
The return value is as for WHO-CALLS.
anybody remember why we make this distinction?
-- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
-- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 885 9127 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM
Gary King gwking@metabang.com writes:
FWIW, it sounds to me like a distinction made for different lisps; some have better support than others for this sort of thing, n'est pas?
if that was the case (and it definetly is) i still don't see why we should have two interfaces. if the lisp's xref support is worse it should just return less info, no?
Yes, it does seem like the distinction is one that a programmer SLIME implementor would want to know about but not like something a SLIME user should care about (except, perhaps, to know that the reflexive technique used was less or more powerful...). From the API perspective, I think a single method would make more sense...
(my apologies for a rushed and less than useful answer, BTW).
On Sep 18, 2006, at 11:55 PM, Marco Baringer wrote:
Gary King gwking@metabang.com writes:
FWIW, it sounds to me like a distinction made for different lisps; some have better support than others for this sort of thing, n'est pas?
if that was the case (and it definetly is) i still don't see why we should have two interfaces. if the lisp's xref support is worse it should just return less info, no?
-- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
-- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 885 9127 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM
-
Gary King -
Marco Baringer