wanted: push/pop declarations or similar
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SBCL |
Triaged
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
From sbcl-devel, by Tobias Rittweiler:
Say you want to get rid of compiler-notes for a very specific
area of code inside a macro. However, the following won't cut it:
`(locally (declare (sb-ext:
(with-foo (...)
(declare (sb-ext:
,@body))
The reason why that is not sufficient is because inside WITH-FOO
we'll unconditionally unmuffle compiler-notes even though there
may a global muffling declaration active.
Presumably you can get at the list of currently muffled condition
from a macro's &environment object, so you can probably write the
above as
(let ((muffled-
env)))
`(locally (declare (sb-ext:
(with-foo (...)
(declare (sb-ext:
(declare (sb-ext:
,@body)))
I'm wondering if this warrants a new declaration REMUFFLE-
summary: |
- declaration scope and muffle/unmuffle-conditions + wanted: push/pop declarations or similar |
Changed in sbcl: | |
importance: | Low → Wishlist |
Similar issue probably affects ENABLE- PACKAGE- LOCKS and DISABLE- PACKAGE- LOCKS.