0.9.1.60:

[sbcl.git] / src / code / cross-condition.lisp

diff --git a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
index 269241c..5c2f821 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
+++ b/src/code/cross-condition.lisp
@@ -17,7 +17,28 @@
 ;;; compiler, it will only be a style-warning.
 (define-condition format-too-many-args-warning (simple-warning) ())
 
-(define-condition encapsulated-condition () ())
+;;; KLUDGE: OAOOM warning: see condition.lisp -- we want a full
+;;; definition in the cross-compiler as well, in order to have nice
+;;; error messages instead of complaints of undefined-function
+;;; ENCAPSULATED-CONDITION.
+(define-condition encapsulated-condition (condition)
+  ((condition :initarg :condition :reader encapsulated-condition)))
+
+;;; KLUDGE: another OAOOM problem, this time to allow conditions with
+;;; REFERENCE-CONDITION in their supercondition list on the host.
+;;; (This doesn't feel like the entirely right solution, it has to be
+;;; said.)  -- CSR, 2004-09-15
+(define-condition reference-condition ()
+  ((references :initarg :references :reader reference-condition-references)))
+
+;;; KLUDGE: yet another OAOOM.
+;;;
+;;; FIXME: This is clearly one OAOOM KLUDGE too many in a row. When tempted
+;;; to add another one invent DEF!CONDITION or whatever seems necessary,
+;;; and replace these.
+(define-condition type-warning (reference-condition simple-warning)
+  ()
+  (:default-initargs :references (list '(:sbcl :node "Handling of Types"))))
 
 (define-condition bug (simple-error)
   ()