[slime-devel] who-calls vs list-callers and calls-who vs list-callees
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
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? -- -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
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
participants (2)
-
Gary King -
Marco Baringer