[asdf-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Fix error in parsing configuration directives

[Faré]

On 7 June 2010 00:33, Stelian Ionescu <sionescu at cddr.org> wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Stelian Ionescu <sionescu at cddr.org>
> ---
>  asdf.lisp |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/asdf.lisp b/asdf.lisp
> index 859d93c..0b4ba6c 100644
> --- a/asdf.lisp
> +++ b/asdf.lisp
> @@ -2508,8 +2508,8 @@ located."
>         (incf inherit)
>         (funcall directive-validator directive))
>     :finally
> -    (unless (= inherit 1)
> -      (error "One and only one of ~S or ~S is required"
> +    (unless (<= inherit 1)
> +      (error "At most one of ~S or ~S is allowed"
>              :inherit-configuration :ignore-inherited-configuration)))
>   form)
>
It was initially on purpose that I inserted this restriction,
because I felt that
1- there was no clearly good default that I could see.
2- if such a default is identified, we can enable it later.
3- if no default is initially provided, we can provide one later
 with backwards compatibility; but if we provide one, we can't change
 it with backwards compatibility.
4- I'd rather error out early with an annoying error message
 than do something silently that will be the wrong thing for many users.

Do you really think there should be a default? Which, and for what reason?
Is there a compelling reason to think that everyone will agree to same
default?

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
		— Friedrich von Schiller