[asdf-devel] Make the CL syntax predictable

[Anton Vodonosov]

The tests on 3.1.0.94 have completed.

No regressions detected, here is the report:
http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-test-grid/asdf/asdf-diff-37.html

The only failure is teepeedee2, which fails because of its own problem
- it includes in its source code libraries like babel, incompatible
with babel from quicklisp.

The lisps tested:
 abcl-1.2.0-fasl42-linux-x86
 abcl-1.2.1-fasl42-linux-x86
 ccl-1.9-f96-linux-x86
 clisp-2.49-unix-x86
 cmu-snapshot-2014-01__20e_unicode_-linux-x86
 ecl-13.5.1-unknown-linux-i686-bytecode
 ecl-13.5.1-unknown-linux-i686-lisp-to-c
 sbcl-1.1.11-linux-x86

I am now preparing to test the patch. Fare, you say on the lates
SBCL, therefore I have build sbcl-1.1.16. Will test on it.

Best regards,
- Anton


12.03.2014, 05:48, "Faré" <fahree at gmail.com>:
> Dear Anton,
>
> can you (1) run cl-test-grid on all implementations with 3.1.0.94, our
> release candidate?
>
> can you run the cl-test-grid on at least SBCL with the latest ASDF and
> the attached patch?
>
> In writing my article "ASDF3, or Why Lisp is Now an Acceptable
> Scripting Language", one of the limitations I list is the mess of
> uncontrollable syntax.
>
> This would fix it... but might break dirty files that side-effect the
> current syntax
> without first creating and using a new readtable. Breaking these files
> is actually desired, but we need to check how large is the issue
> before we do it (if we do).
>
> I figure that, like any other potentially disruptive change, it is
> best done just before a release that defines a new features, in this
> case, #+asdf3.1
>
> Of course, I won't commit any such thing to master without maintainer approval.
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
>         — Ernst Haeckel