[asdf-devel] never ending component relative pathnames [2]

[Robert Goldman]

On 3/9/10 Mar 9 -5:49 PM, Faré wrote:
> Dear James,
> 
>> i have reformulated the test cases and run them through several
>> implementations.[0]
>>
> Thanks a lot!
> 
>> 1. i had thought (eg. [1]) that abcl and asdf were compatible. is
>> there some special version involved? the cl.net release failed to
>> load.[2]
>>
> Oh my, the asdf:around fiasco again. ABCL apparently uses an old
> version of ASDF to avoid a lot DEFINE-METHOD-COMBINATION.
> 
> Couldn't we instead just have a do-perform function do the wrapping
> stuff and call perform gf, and skip that method-combination
> complication?
> 
> Is there a good reason to use this method-combination protocol? Does
> anyone rely on either defining asdf:around methods or on calling
> perform directly and having it do the restart magic?

REQUEST:  Let's ticket this issue in launchpad and ponder it for a
while.  I'm reluctant to take hasty action on this one.  ISTR that
decisions were taken previously, when clisp was not fully mature, that
had unpleasant downstream consequences.  If we're going to rip this out,
I'd like it if we were sure that we were comfortable with the consequences.

Also, it would be interesting to know what plans the ABCL implementers
do or don't have to support D-M-C.

Best,
R