[asdf-devel] Tests completed

Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman at sift.info
Mon Jan 13 03:51:23 UTC 2014

Faré wrote:
>> > The problem is that the current change in implementation breaks unknown
>> > code in ways that quietly cause it to fail to do what the programmer
>> > expects without any visible notification of the change.
>> >
> Any change in implementation will do that: if people start relying on bugs,
> instead of reporting them and getting them fixed, then of course their code
> will break when the bugs are fixed
> With ASDF, no one really understood the bug (or the structure of ASDF
> in general),
> and back in the days of ASDF1, there was no incentive in figuring
> things out anyway,
> since there was no good process for getting things fixed.
> Many people were using kludges

With all due respect, I think you are being a little unfair to the the
victims in this case.

In the past, if you assumed that subclassing OPERATION would give you
the same dependency behavior as LOAD-OP, then you weren't far wrong.

But now you get no dependency propagation, and that's almost always wrong.

I am not saying there was a better solution, but I don't think it's fair
to say that people who subclassed OPERATION were relying on bugs.  There
WERE bugs in the behavior they relied upon, but that's not the same as
relying on bugs....

But this is a quibble.  I'm not saying there was a better solution; I'm
just saying that fixing these bugs is not without costs, and it's not
fair to blame the people who had to live with buggy libraries.


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list