[asdf-devel] ASDF 3.0.2.1 released

[Robert Goldman]

Faré wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> 
> here are some code review comments on ASDF 3.0.2.1.

Thank you very much for these comments.  They are hugely helpful, and I
will act on them.
> 
> * Putting :asdf/find-system after :asdf in the recycle looks like it's
> defeating the purpose;
> you might as well remove it.

Will do.  I didn't get around to documenting RECYCLE per our
conversation on the ticket.  I have pushed a revision (3.0.2.2) with
documentation, perhaps you could review?  In particular, I don't
adequately understand the :MIX option, so have left it without
documentation.

Would it be reasonable to have DEFINE-PACKAGE have keyword arguments as
well as the &rest parameter?  The idea would be to make the information
an emacs (or other) environment displays to the programmer be more useful.

Another related question: in ENSURE-PACKAGE, there's a case where we
ignore names that the programmer has asked us to UNINTERN (when they are
:INHERITED).  Question: should we be signaling this with a WARNING, in
case the user's expressed intent is being violated?  Or is this
something that must be violated sometimes in order to effectively
upgrade (in which case we should leave this here).

> * Maybe refactor duplicate-names so it doesn't inherit from
> system-definition-error ?
>  Or have a function of the same name be called that is defined later
> to throw the error?

That seems possible, or perhaps we should just have an ASDF/CONDITIONS
package and kick *all* of the conditions up the dependency order?  If
you want one, just import it or use this package.  That seems possibly
to cause upgrade issues, though, so I have left this undone.

> * Since we don't work on antique cmucl, maybe we could check whether
> the :report print-object hack is still needed?

I haven't been testing on either cmucl or abcl, it seems.  I will
restore those, and maybe we could do this.

Raymond seems like the authority on this.

> * I kind of wanted to prevent the multiplication of .asd files and the
> eating away of the namespace by using test-asdf/foo systems for new
> systems; but it's your baby, so your call. Also, an error might not be
> compatible with putting it in test-asdf.asd. On the other hand, that's
> a case where define-test-system and/or eval can be used so you don't
> need a .asd file at all.

Thank you; I will think about making these changes.
> 
> * the nodes in the grammar could be renamed to be less confusing and
> not require a comment.

Agreed.  Also, I'm not sure about the syntax that's used here.  There
are some uses of @var markup, but it's not clear to me what that
signifies.  I suspect we haven't used it consistently as the texinfo has
accumulated over time.

The manual really needs an end-to-end overhaul, but I don't see myself
as having the time to do this in the near future.

best,

r
> 
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> The politicians have a most touching faith in technology — that it can make
> up for any dumb thing the politicians decide to do.  — John McCarthy