[asdf-devel] patch system-source-file
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:
> 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
> 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
> then either
> 2a. We specify these as being of type string and specify that they
> "" as a default. Supplying NIL would be a type error. For the
> 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
> If someone will express a clear preference that isn't shouted down,
> 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...
More information about the asdf-devel