[asdf-devel] asdf verbosity

[Faré]

> No, which is why I wrote that I'd be happy if the old behavior was restored.
It has been restored in 2.014.12.

For 2.014.13, I'm considering making asdf not verbose by default. I'm
wondering what you think of it.

Nevertheless, I think SBCL should be changed to explicitly use
:verbose nil when it loads a .asd from another one -- and/or it should
be relying on the new :defsystem-depends-on.

>> I'm confused because it seemed like the alternatives were new, greater
>> verbosity, versus silence, neither of which seems very appealing to
>> me.
>
> Those are indeed both bad choices.
>
What's wrong with (mostly) silence?

What about verbosity levels, with an integer indicating what level of
messages to get?

> Any change that I can ignore, and still get the current appearance,
> behavior, and semantics, is one I don't mind.
>
OK, what do you positively like about the current output, that you
want to preserve?

Semantics, I think we all agree must be preserved -- though sometimes
I make mistake in interpreting it -- and I am ever so grateful to you
for your exhaustive testing.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Just because your semi-free country government is evil doesn't mean "native"
governments have a right to exist and enslave "their" people. — Faré