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

Faré fare at tunes.org
Wed Jan 22 07:19:21 UTC 2014

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru> wrote:
> 22.01.2014, 09:16, "Faré" <fare at tunes.org>:
>> PPS: Anton reports no error. Is that because the classes that are
>> broken are never invoked during the loading of those libraries, only
>> during the using of them, but no code in quicklisp actually uses them?
> Maybe there are no such classes? Why would people extend operation?
There are many such classes. Extending operation is how you add,
i.e. cffi grovel and cffi wrappers support, automatic documentation generation,
dependency groveling, tarball generation, cross-compilation, and more.

> As for signalling the problem, I agree with Robert in the sense that
> if such users exists, it is friendly to save them from debugging an issue like this.
> If not error, then at least very very bold warning, or cerror
It's nice to notify users of problems... but what if this is done by
introducing new problems for sure, whereas these users are
hypothetical, especially since they are supposed to have extended ASDF
yet been unaware of change introduced one year ago in ASDF?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
As for poverty, no one need be ashamed to admit it: the real shame is
in not taking practical measures to escape from it. — Perikles

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list