[asdf-devel] force vs force-not

Faré fahree at gmail.com
Tue Mar 4 07:18:10 UTC 2014

As I am writing a parting article (for ELS 2014? ILC 2014?) on the
what and wherefore of ASDF3, I tackled the question of force and
force-not, and was reminded about that discussion whether I got it
right or backward when I gave force precedence over force-not.

Then I retold how force-not was implemented at the request of Erik
Pearson, who wanted to be able to declare some systems as "builtin"
and not to be reloaded; their code not expensively scanner for
upgrades (or worse, for downgrades). Then it came to me: duh, of
course force-not should take precedence over force. The use case is
clear and clearly legitimate: extending the "base" system such that
you can extend it, but not redefine the locked package; yet being able
to force some or all of the rest of the system.

I don't see a clear cut case in the the opposite side. Maybe one of
you can tell.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
The weak terrorist who predictably loses, causing death for those
he claims to defend is infinitely more evil than the strong one who wins.

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list