[Asdf-devel] (asdf:output-file 'asdf:monolithic-fasl-op ...) no longer working

[Faré]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> Faré wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Dave Cooper <david.cooper at genworks.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure how much this matters because it's mostly a backward
>>> compatibility issue with something which is a relatively new feature anyway,
>>> but
>>>
>>>  (asdf:output-file[s] 'asdf:monolithic-fasl-op ...)
>>>
>>> no longer works in 3.1.3 (at least on CCL/Linux). The new nomenclature is
>>> apparently:
>>>
>>>   (asdf:output-file[s] 'asdf:monolithic-compile-bundle-op ...)
>>>
>>> is 'asdf:monolithic-compile-bundle-op indeed the exact replacement for
>>> 'asdf:monolithic-fasl-op?
>>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>> That's my bad. In 3.1, we deprecated the old names in favor of the new,
>> but I didn't realize people were relying on the output-files method.
>> It would be trivial to provide dummy "forwarding" output-files methods
>> for the *fasl-op operations to just return the output-files of the underlying
>> new-name operation.
>>
>> Patch accepted (I suppose).
>
> I'd favor just removing these deprecated operations instead of creating
> the forwarding methods.  If we add the methods for OUTPUT-FILES, what
> other methods do we need to add?
>
> I'd rather just kill this now, instead of adding work to maintain code
> that should be removed later, anyway.
>
Yes, removing the code might be the better option.
We could always provide a separate backward compatibility system
that provides the old names and all the methods.

The only other known user of that feature is SBCL, but it uses it only
at compile time with its own pinned copy of ASDF, and I have published
a patch on their launchpad (but the SBCL people seem to be in no hurry
to update ASDF — their copy, 3.0.2, is over a year old (wow, time
flies)).

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent,
you don't dare have one." — Robert LeFevre