[asdf-devel] Various issues
fahree at gmail.com
Thu May 24 15:12:43 UTC 2012
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tobias C Rittweiler <tcr at freebits.de> wrote:
> In article <4FBE3BC7.7090505 at sift.info>,
> Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info>
>> On 5/24/12 May 24 -4:13 AM, Tobias C Rittweiler wrote:
>> > Hi there!
>> > Thanks to the ASDF maintainers. I just visited ASDF's website
>> > on common-lisp.net since a long time, and it makes a nicely
>> > maintained impression! Well done.
>> > I have the following issues:
>> > * The rather old ASDF version that I'm using ("2.010") does
>> > not seem to be able to cope with multiple :depends-on clauses.
>> > (Only one clause seems to be used.)
>> > Is this intended behaviour? Might it be fixed in more recent
>> > versions?
>> Tobias, does ASDF just take the first and quietly throw later ones on
>> the floor, or does it at least emit an error message? If it emits an
>> error message, I think it's ok. But if it quietly discards the second
>> clause, I think it's a bug, and we should make ASDF warn the programmer.
>> I'd encourage you to post a launchpad bug in that case.
>> Sorry to bother asking you instead of just testing --- I'm traveling and
>> not in a good position to test anything. Similarly not a great time for
>> me to make launchpad bugs.
> Yes ignoring the second clause was what happened on SBCL.
> I will submit a ticket.
I don't know that it's a bug. As Stelian mentioned,
we're using destructuring-bind and/or apply 'make-instance,
and that's the normal behavior in these cases.
I think we should just document this behavior,
and NOT try to catch and raise an error in the case of repeated keys.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
To fight a violent enemy, violence is necessary;
but to fight violence itself, violence is vain.
More information about the asdf-devel