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

Faré fare at tunes.org
Wed Jan 22 19:06:31 UTC 2014

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Anton Vodonosov <avodonosov at yandex.ru> wrote:
> I don't think that preserving OPERATION semantics is really ruled out.
> Lets consider it a little bit more?
> Is it true that old ASDF:OPERATION is semantically equivalent to the new
> DOWNWARD-OPERATION? If yes, the proposal I made earlier looks appropriate:
>   COMPILE-OP inherit from OPERATION
>   LOAD-OP inherit from OPERATION
> If we make so, these operations are backward compatible
> and at the same time fit the new ASDF 3 design.
It's not backward compatible with systems that define methods on operation,
and expect the method to be always calls for all operations.
I admit I haven't kept track of how many of them there were while
auditing quicklisp;
a few, still, that will have to be updated — making the exercise self-defeating
as a way to detect old code.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not.
Both are equally terrifying. — Arthur C. Clarke

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list