[asdf-devel] clisp and asdf

[Sam Steingold]

> * Faré <snuerr at tznvy.pbz> [2013-01-20 22:46:35 -0500]:
>
> Of all the lisp implementations, CLISP has given me the most trouble
> with ASDF upgrade.  Unlike all other Lisps, it won't let me undefine
> functions and redefine them in the same fasl file.  Somehow, I always
> end up with CLISP either complaining that a function signature doesn't
> match (was or wasn't a generic function with an incompatible
> lambda-list), because I couldn't undefine it, or that it is undefined
> and never redefined, because I undefined it and CLISP throws away my
> redefinition somehow. I tried to selectively unintern symbols for
> functions thus upgraded, but that also fails. Yet all these things
> work in about all other Lisps.
>
> In the end, I punted: I just rename the old ASDF package to
> ASDF-${version} early on, but that messes with any package that :use's
> ASDF, and then CLISP will complain again, unless ASDF is the very
> first thing upgraded before anything uses it.
>
> Could CLISP be made more upgrade-friendly?

When you actually do change function signatures, a warning is, IMO,
quite appropriate.  I am not really sure why you want to silence them.

> (another thing I don't understand that may or may not be related is
> the .lib output files produced together with a fasl,
> when and how they are used, and what I should or should not do with them.)

http://clisp.org/impnotes/require.html#lib-files

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) X 11.0.11103000
http://www.childpsy.net/ http://openvotingconsortium.org
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/tap12009/ http://dhimmi.com
Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment.