[asdf-devel] patch system-source-file

james anderson james.anderson at setf.de
Tue Jul 14 17:14:46 UTC 2009

On 2009-07-14, at 18:56 , Robert Goldman wrote:

> james anderson wrote:
>> hello;
>> [...]
> This is a good description of the general problem, but it  
> overstates the
> problem here.  Nobody should be setting these slots after they are set
> (or not) in the defsystem form, so a slot-unbound error will not be
> difficult to resolve.  However, it /might/ create a cumbersome  
> nuisance
> for code that wishes to process asdf components.

my experience is that you can change "might" to "did".

> [...]
>> 4. if one would like to see the code at the version which constitutes
>> the current approach to this issue, which revision should one pull?
> I don't have a good answer for this, sorry.
> I think that James clearly states the issues.  I propose we just  
> try to
> come to consensus on something like the following:
> 1.  We specify which of the system string initargs are actually  
> optional.
> then either
> 2a.  We specify these as being of type string and specify that they  
> take
> "" as a default.  Supplying NIL would be a type error.  For the  
> benefit
> of non-type-checking lisps, we could add :after methods on
> initialize-instance to reject non-string values.
> 2b.  We specify that the type is (or null string) because we want  
> to be
> able to distinguish unsupplied from explicitly empty.
> These both seem reasonable alternatives, as long as we state one of  
> them
> clearly.
> If someone will express a clear preference that isn't shouted down,  
> I'd
> be happy to provide help either documenting or coding up support.

i propose, 2b iff some operator depends on the distinction. otherwise  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20090714/7aa37bb8/attachment.html>

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list