[Asdf-devel] ASDF does not signal deferred non-style warnings as an error

[Robert P. Goldman]

Faré wrote:
>>>> : rpg
>>> : fare
>> : rpg
> 
....
>>> You're discussing the behavior of a file that isn't checked in;
>> No, this file is checked in, and you should see these results if you run
>> the test suite after pulling master from cl.net.
>>
> OK, I might have been looking at the wrong place.
> I see that test now, and tweaked it to make it more portable.
> This test (only) checks cases where deferred-warnings are enabled.
> 
>>> does it have interesting handler-bind's?
>> No, it's just Ilya's example.
>>
> It's not: you're enabling deferred-warnings. Ilya wasn't.
> This explains the different in behavior.

Argh. I misinterpreted the name and didn't read carefully enough. I was
thinking of deferred-warnings as a thing that happens, rather than as an
ASDF feature. My bad. I should copy this test out to a
disabled-deferred-warnings.script.
> 
>>>> This suggested some conjectures:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  AFAICT, using ASDF's deferred-warnings would have required first
>>>> breaking the logic that ACL already provides, and then recreating it in
>>>> ASDF.
>>>>
>>> No. It doesn't require anything but suitable defaults.
>>> It might "just" be that check-deferred-warnings needs be made more clever,
>>> and/or might need to have its own separate variants of
>>> *compile-file-warnings-behaviour* and *compile-file-failure-behaviour*,
>>> and maybe also *compile-check*.
>> This still means "take code that works, break it, and then add more code
>> to fix the breakage."
>>
> No. Any code that the deferred-warnings declares broken is indeed broken code,
> though the bugs that go unchecked without deferred-warnings might happen
> to not be seen by users because it's in code not reached at runtime,
> or executed correctly on the implementation used by the user, though unportable.

Hmmm... I will check again.  In the past, what was happening for me on
ACL was that I was seeing a large number of bogus UNDEFINED-FUNCTION
warnings.  But maybe I'm confusing ENABLE-DEFERRED-WARNINGS with an
earlier version where we moved the W-C-U's around.  I will recheck
against a large system with a lot of forward-referenced functions.

More philosophical musings I'll have to defer....

cheers,
r