0.8.16.45:

	made the system stop guessing whether a fooCASE normal-clause
		might have been intended as an otherwise-clause (and
		stop issuing STYLE-WARNINGs); this fixes an unreasonable
		guess reported by Tony Martinez sbcl-devel 2004-11-09

diff --git a/src/code/macros.lisp b/src/code/macros.lisp
index baf6694..9f65732 100644 (file)
--- a/src/code/macros.lisp
+++ b/src/code/macros.lisp
@@ -181,8 +181,9 @@
 ;;; When MULTI-P, TEST is applied to the value of KEYFORM and each key
 ;;; for a given branch; otherwise, TEST is applied to the value of
 ;;; KEYFORM and the entire first element, instead of each part, of the
-;;; case branch. When ERRORP, no T or OTHERWISE branch is permitted,
-;;; and an ERROR form is generated. When PROCEEDP, it is an error to
+;;; case branch. When ERRORP, no OTHERWISE-CLAUSEs are recognized,
+;;; and an ERROR form is generated where control falls off the end
+;;; of the ordinary clauses. When PROCEEDP, it is an error to
 ;;; omit ERRORP, and the ERROR form generated is executed within a
 ;;; RESTART-CASE allowing KEYFORM to be set and retested.
 (defun case-body (name keyform cases multi-p test errorp proceedp needcasesp)
@@ -197,17 +198,33 @@
       (unless (list-of-length-at-least-p case 1)
        (error "~S -- bad clause in ~S" case name))
       (destructuring-bind (keyoid &rest forms) case
-       (cond ((and (memq keyoid '(t otherwise))
+       (cond (;; an OTHERWISE-CLAUSE 
+              ;;
+              ;; By the way... The old code here tried gave
+              ;; STYLE-WARNINGs for normal-clauses which looked as
+              ;; though they might've been intended to be
+              ;; otherwise-clauses. As Tony Martinez reported on
+              ;; sbcl-devel 2004-11-09 there are sometimes good
+              ;; reasons to write clauses like that; and as I noticed
+              ;; when trying to understand the old code so I could
+              ;; understand his patch, trying to guess which clauses
+              ;; don't have good reasons is fundamentally kind of a
+              ;; mess. SBCL does issue style warnings rather
+              ;; enthusiastically, and I have often justified that by
+              ;; arguing that we're doing that to detect issues which
+              ;; are tedious for programmers to detect for by
+              ;; proofreading (like small typoes in long symbol
+              ;; names, or duplicate function definitions in large
+              ;; files). This doesn't seem to be an issue like that,
+              ;; and I can't think of a comparably good justification
+              ;; for giving STYLE-WARNINGs for legal code here, so
+              ;; now we just hope the programmer knows what he's
+              ;; doing. -- WHN 2004-11-20
+              (and (not errorp) ; possible only in CASE or TYPECASE,
+                                ; not in [EC]CASE or [EC]TYPECASE
+                   (memq keyoid '(t otherwise))
                    (null (cdr cases)))
-              (if errorp
-                  (progn
-                    (style-warn "~@<Treating bare ~A in ~A as introducing a ~
-                                  normal-clause, not an otherwise-clause~@:>"
-                                keyoid name)
-                    (push keyoid keys)
-                    (push `((,test ,keyform-value ',keyoid) nil ,@forms)
-                          clauses))
-                  (push `(t nil ,@forms) clauses)))
+              (push `(t nil ,@forms) clauses))
              ((and multi-p (listp keyoid))
               (setf keys (append keyoid keys))
               (push `((or ,@(mapcar (lambda (key)

diff --git a/version.lisp-expr b/version.lisp-expr
index 504ebc1..ba7a8fb 100644 (file)
--- a/version.lisp-expr
+++ b/version.lisp-expr
@@ -17,4 +17,4 @@
 ;;; checkins which aren't released. (And occasionally for internal
 ;;; versions, especially for internal versions off the main CVS
 ;;; branch, it gets hairier, e.g. "0.pre7.14.flaky4.13".)
-"0.8.16.44"
+"0.8.16.45"