[asdf-devel] Pushed version -- first version with checks for OPERATION subclasses -- please test!

Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman at sift.info
Wed Jan 22 19:54:18 UTC 2014

Anton Vodonosov wrote:
>> > It's not backward compatible with systems that define methods on operation,
>> > and expect the method to be always calls for all operations.
> But does "all operations" for the old code means only: operation, compile-op, load-op,
> load-source-op, test-op and any descendants of those?
> Because old code knew only this hierarchy.

I think what Faré is pointing out is that one could build, for example,
an introspection library by adding for example, PERFORM methods that
would dispatch on OPERATION and that would catch *all* PERFORMS and
write a log or something like that.

If we no longer make OPERATION the root of the hierarchy then such
introspection libraries will no longer work.

While Faré and I differ on how active we should be about alerting (he
might say "annoying" ;->) programmers, he has convinced me that the
solution will have to involve leaving OPERATION as the root class.

In that case, library programmers will simply have to adjust to the new
semantics, rather than ASDF fixing its semantics to be backward compatible.

I certainly hope I am wrong about this!  But I fear that I am not.


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list