condition-class
make-condition-class)
(:copier nil))
-
- (function-name nil)
;; actual initargs supplied to MAKE-CONDITION
(actual-initargs (required-argument) :type list)
- ;; plist mapping slot names to any values that were assigned or
+ ;; a plist mapping slot names to any values that were assigned or
;; defaulted after creation
(assigned-slots () :type list))
;; If ALLOCATION is :CLASS, this is a cons whose car holds the value.
(cell nil :type (or cons null)))
-(eval-when (#-sb-xc :compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
- ;; the appropriate initialization value for the CPL slot of a
- ;; CONDITION, calculated by looking at the INHERITS information in
- ;; the LAYOUT of the CONDITION
- (defun condition-class-cpl-from-layout (condition)
- (declare (type condition condition))
- (let* ((class (sb!xc:find-class condition))
- (layout (class-layout class))
- (superset (map 'list #'identity (layout-inherits layout))))
- (delete-if (lambda (superclass)
- (not (typep superclass 'condition-class)))
- superset))))
-
;;; KLUDGE: It's not clear to me why CONDITION-CLASS has itself listed
;;; in its CPL, while other classes derived from CONDITION-CLASS don't
;;; have themselves listed in their CPLs. This behavior is inherited
(define-condition simple-warning (simple-condition warning) ())
-(defun print-simple-error (condition stream)
- (format stream
- ;; FIXME: It seems reasonable to display the "in function
- ;; ~S" information, but doesn't the logic to display it
- ;; belong in the debugger or someplace like that instead of
- ;; in the format string for this particular family of
- ;; conditions? Then this printer might look more
- ;; ("~@<~S: ~2I~:_~?~:>" (TYPE-OF C) ..) instead.
- "~@<error in function ~S: ~2I~:_~?~:>"
- (condition-function-name condition)
- (simple-condition-format-control condition)
- (simple-condition-format-arguments condition)))
-
-(define-condition simple-error (simple-condition error) ()
- ;; This is the condition type used by ERROR and CERROR when
- ;; a format-control string is supplied as the first argument.
- (:report print-simple-error))
+(define-condition simple-error (simple-condition error) ())
(define-condition storage-condition (serious-condition) ())
-;;; FIXME: Should we really be reporting CONDITION-FUNCTION-NAME data
-;;; on an ad hoc basis, for some conditions and not others? Why not
-;;; standardize it somehow? perhaps by making the debugger report it?
-
(define-condition type-error (error)
((datum :reader type-error-datum :initarg :datum)
(expected-type :reader type-error-expected-type :initarg :expected-type))
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
- "~@<TYPE-ERROR in ~S: ~
- ~2I~_The value ~4I~:_~S ~2I~_is not of type ~4I~_~S.~:>"
- (condition-function-name condition)
+ "~@<The value ~2I~:_~S ~I~_is not of type ~2I~_~S.~:>"
(type-error-datum condition)
(type-error-expected-type condition)))))
+(define-condition simple-type-error (simple-condition type-error) ())
+
(define-condition program-error (error) ())
(define-condition parse-error (error) ())
(define-condition control-error (error) ())
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
- "END-OF-FILE on ~S"
+ "end of file on ~S"
(stream-error-stream condition)))))
(define-condition file-error (error)
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
- "~@<FILE-ERROR in function ~S: ~2I~:_~?~:>"
- (condition-function-name condition)
+ "~@<error on file ~_~S: ~2I~:_~?~:>"
+ (file-error-pathname condition)
+ ;; FIXME: ANSI's FILE-ERROR doesn't have FORMAT-CONTROL and
+ ;; FORMAT-ARGUMENTS, and the inheritance here doesn't seem
+ ;; to give us FORMAT-CONTROL or FORMAT-ARGUMENTS either.
+ ;; So how does this work?
(serious-condition-format-control condition)
(serious-condition-format-arguments condition)))))
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
- "error in ~S: The variable ~S is unbound."
- (condition-function-name condition)
+ "The variable ~S is unbound."
(cell-error-name condition)))))
(define-condition undefined-function (cell-error) ()
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
- "error in ~S: The function ~S is undefined."
- (condition-function-name condition)
+ "The function ~S is undefined."
(cell-error-name condition)))))
(define-condition arithmetic-error (error)
(format stream "~S cannot be printed readably." obj)))))
(define-condition reader-error (parse-error stream-error)
- ;; FIXME: Do we need FORMAT-CONTROL and FORMAT-ARGUMENTS when
- ;; we have an explicit :REPORT function? I thought we didn't..
((format-control
:reader reader-error-format-control
:initarg :format-control)
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
- "error in ~S: ~S: index too large"
- (condition-function-name condition)
+ "The index ~S is too large."
(type-error-datum condition)))))
(define-condition io-timeout (stream-error)
(lambda (condition stream)
(declare (type stream stream))
(format stream
- "IO-TIMEOUT ~(~A~)ing ~S"
+ "I/O timeout ~(~A~)ing ~S"
(io-timeout-direction condition)
(stream-error-stream condition)))))
(:report
(lambda (condition stream)
(format stream
- "unexpected EOF on ~S ~A"
+ "unexpected end of file on ~S ~A"
(stream-error-stream condition)
(reader-eof-error-context condition)))))
\f
projects / sbcl.git / blobdiff