[asdf-devel] Re: Make the CL syntax predictable

[Zach Beane]

Faré <fahree at gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Zach Beane <xach at xach.com> wrote:
>> Faré <fahree at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Once it's accepted that ASDF will enforce the syntax variables decided
>>
>> This seems more like an "if" than a "once" to me.
>>
> Then please argue that. I for one fully agree that the big question is
> not about the specific defaults chosen by Dan Barlow and me in the
> past, and possibly Robert Goldman in the future, but about whether
> ASDF should provide a default that system author can rely upon.
>
> Will you argue against ASDF letting the system author fully control
> the file type of source files, rather than it depending on a global
> variable?
>
> Will you argue against ADSF letting the system author fully control
> the encoding of source files, rather than it depending on a global
> variable?
>
> Will you argue against ADSF letting the system author fully control
> the syntax of source files, rather than it depending on a global
> variable?
>
> And since you're fond of C analogies: should gcc determine the syntax
> it uses to compile a file based on an environment variable or on
> information fully determined by the software author in his Makefile?
>
> That's the high-order bit question. Let's argue it, with more than an
> ad hominem attack.

I do not want to see a system that relies on personal intercession to
reduce the friction introduced by the things it breaks. Even if those
things are not open source or free software projects, even if they use
dirty, unhygienic techniques, even if they did not report promptly to
you when a problem arose, even if they do not want your help, I do not
think they deserve to lose.

If there is no clear way to get the effects you want without breaking
code that works today, I would prefer nothing be done until such a
solution is clearer.

Zach