[asdf-devel] Pushed version 3.1.0.52 -- first version with checks for OPERATION subclasses -- please test!

[Faré]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> Faré wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I was more thinking about people defining methods on operation.
>
> I *think* we were trying to say the same thing.  Maybe not?  I was
> giving PERFORM as an example of a generic function on which we could
> define methods for the OPERATION type.
>
> I don't know what sorts of code would do that: introspection seemed like
> a logical example.
>
> Are we talking about something different?
>
We were actually talking about the same thing.
When I saw "introspection", I brainfarted that you were meaning
that some people might be using MOP
to inspect methods for subclasses of OPERATION.
But you just meant new methods on OPERATION for the sake of inspection.

Once again, you can see what's in quicklisp:
>> less -p 'defmethod.* operation)' $(grep -il 'defmethod.* operation)'
>> ~/quicklisp/dists/quicklisp/software/**/*.{asd,lisp})

Plus POIU has a few of its own.

>> ITA's QRes also defines methods on operation (as you can see in the
>> parts that were open sourced); maybe other proprietary systems do,
>> too. Once again, if anyone is extending ASDF in proprietary system (or
>> just ones not on quicklisp), he'd be well-advised to be on this
>> mailing-list.
>
> Maybe that's true, but we have no way of enforcing it.  Hell, we don't
> even have the means to *suggest* it -- the Catch-22 is that we can only
> suggest subscribing to ASDF-devel... on ASDF-devel! ;-)
>
My point is that we already had a "good" way of enforcing it:
very bad documentation, such that someone trying to do something
would have been ill-advised to do it without consulting the mailing-list.
As for loners who refuse to contact the mailing-list?
Well, their code will break, and they'll fix it without talking to us. Good.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Future scholars will only have copies of copies of copies of manuscripts.
How will they authenticate what really WAS said in our dark ages?