- (if doc-string-allowed
- ;; ANSI 3.4.11 explicitly requires that a doc
- ;; string be followed by another form (either an
- ;; ordinary form or a declaration). Hence:
- (if remaining-forms
- (if doc
- ;; ANSI 3.4.11 says that the consequences of
- ;; duplicate doc strings are unspecified.
- ;; That's probably not something the
- ;; programmer intends. We raise an error so
- ;; that this won't pass unnoticed.
- (error "duplicate doc string ~S" x)
- t)))))
+ (if doc-string-allowed
+ ;; ANSI 3.4.11 explicitly requires that a doc
+ ;; string be followed by another form (either an
+ ;; ordinary form or a declaration). Hence:
+ (if remaining-forms
+ (if doc
+ ;; ANSI 3.4.11 says that the consequences of
+ ;; duplicate doc strings are unspecified.
+ ;; That's probably not something the
+ ;; programmer intends. We raise an error so
+ ;; that this won't pass unnoticed.
+ (error "duplicate doc string ~S" x)
+ t)))))
- (case name
- ((declare) t)
- ((declaim)
- (unless toplevel
- ;; technically legal, but rather unlikely to
- ;; be what the user meant to do...
- (style-warn
- "DECLAIM where DECLARE was probably intended")
- nil))
- (t nil))))))
+ (case name
+ ((declare) t)
+ ((declaim)
+ (unless toplevel
+ ;; technically legal, but rather unlikely to
+ ;; be what the user meant to do...
+ (style-warn
+ "DECLAIM where DECLARE was probably intended")
+ nil))
+ (t nil))))))
- (let ((form1 (first forms)))
- ;; Note: The (IF (IF ..) ..) stuff is because we don't
- ;; have the macro AND yet.:-|
- (if (doc-string-p form1 (rest forms))
- (setq doc form1)
- (if (declaration-p form1)
- (setq reversed-decls
- (cons form1 reversed-decls))
- (go :done)))
- (setq forms (rest forms))
- (go :again)))
+ (let ((form1 (first forms)))
+ ;; Note: The (IF (IF ..) ..) stuff is because we don't
+ ;; have the macro AND yet.:-|
+ (if (doc-string-p form1 (rest forms))
+ (setq doc form1)
+ (if (declaration-p form1)
+ (setq reversed-decls
+ (cons form1 reversed-decls))
+ (go :done)))
+ (setq forms (rest forms))
+ (go :again)))