[asdf-devel] Suggested patches for ASDF

Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman at sift.info
Fri Sep 9 23:57:22 UTC 2011

Not exactly. The feature I (was trying to) resolve at compile time was just ECL versus other implementation. Byte compiler versus not would be resolved at run time.
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

"Faré" <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 18:53, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
<juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 18:33, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>> > Question:  any objection to modifying your patch so that we have
>> > something like:
>> >
>> > #+ecl
>> > (defun use-ecl-byte-compiler-p ()
>> >  (member :ecl-bytecomp *features*))
>> > #-ecl
>> > (defun use-ecl-byte-compiler-p ()
>> >  nil)
>> >
>> > and then call the function in place of the member query in other code?
>> >
>> No. Juanjo will confirm, but
>> IIUC it can change at runtime after having loaded ASDF, so it's
> Yes, the change may happen after ASDF is loaded, without problems.
>> #+ecl
>> (defun use-ecl-bytecode-compiler-p ()
>>  (member :ecl-bytecmp *features*))
> Isn't this the same as the code above?
If by "the code above" you mean your original patch and my merge
thereof, then yes it is the same, with just a tiny bit of refactoring.
If by "the code above" you mean Robert's version with #+ecl, then no,
it's different, since Robert's version resolves the features at
read-time; by the time the features are updated, it's then too late
for ASDF to change its mind.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20110909/49708d51/attachment.html>

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list