[asdf-devel] 2.014.8

[Robert P. Goldman]

With all due respect, it's not a matter of pushing people to follow a convention. The code and documentation specify a data type and the interpretation of its values.

It's just that people don't follow this specification. I don't want to break code unnecessarily, but raising a CONTINUABLE type error on non-string values and even bad string values would be reasonable.

Maybe if we had that we wouldn't have so many uselessly versioned systems in the wild.
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Daniel Herring <dherring at tentpost.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Zach Beane wrote: > Daniel Herring <dherring at tentpost.com> writes: > >> This is one of the spots where I think it is appropriate for a >> distribution like Quicklisp to patch the sources locally, until the proper >> changes are accepted upstream... >> >> Such portability and upgrade details need not be the concern of every >> library author for life. > > The problem doesn't actually manifest itself unless the user has > e.g. (declaim (optimize (safety 3))) in their init file in SBCL, and > even then, it's because of an incompatible change in an ASDF minor > version that, I think, can be fixed in ASDF. Yes and no. As it stands now, version information in ASDF files is virtually worthless. If we nudge people towards using a single convention... but there are other issues as well and it might not be worth the effort right now. - Daniel_____________________________________________
asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel at common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20110423/6a236717/attachment.html>