Edi Weitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's the right way to get rid of this note and help CMUCL in
> optimizing the code?
I think I've found it. This code seems to make CMUCL happy:
(loop for matcher in all-matchers
thereis (funcall (the function matcher) start-pos))
BTW, would this more verbose version...
(loop for matcher in all-matchers
thereis (funcall (the (function (fixnum) (or fixnum null)) matcher) start-pos))
...improve something or just make the code uglier?
Cheers,
Edi.
