Re: compiler warnings for "unused" method specializers

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> My other instinct was to just put "_" for all unused parameters, but if
>> there's more than one of those, the compiler complains about repeated
>> variables.
>
> It'd be nice to change the byte-compiler so it doesn't complain about
> repeated variables for _.
>
>> For what it's worth, Lispworks does not complain about unused eql
>> parameters in defmethods.  It would make sense if Emacs didn't, either.
>
> Indeed for eql specializers, it could make sense to silence the
> byte-compiler warnings, but at the same time, I'm not sure it's worth
> the trouble to handle this case specially.

So maybe it's not worth adding extra compiler code to handle method
specializers, but it would be worth allowing multiple _s? I do like the
use of _ to say "this variable intentionally and permanently ignored".