fahree at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 03:37:31 UTC 2015
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> On 7/14/15 Jul 14 -6:04 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to remove the export of *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*. It hasn't
>>> been used in a released version of ASDF AFAIK, so it seems benign to
>>> remove it.
>> isn't that also the case for REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM?
Well, note that I exported *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS* from ASDF/FIND-SYSTEM
but *not* from ASDF/INTERFACE (aka ASDF). I believe that was appropriate;
but I don't strongly defend this export, either.
>> if that export sticks in the release then it'll be a headache down the
>> road (assuming that it is indeed an unfortunate name and not just my
>> lone opinion).
> OK, I just had a look at rewriting REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM and it is
> *not* amenable to a rewrite as a setf-able predicate. There are all
> kinds of side-effecting in that code that would have to be disentangled
> to make the "query" form of that function work.
Well, if we change the API to add a boolean slot to SYSTEM, we could
remove REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM, and make it the responsibility of
the user to create the system, whether through
register-preloaded-system or not. Actually, if the slot has an initarg
keyword, then you can use register-preloaded-system directly to create
an immutable system if not already present, or you'll have to use setf
to make an otherwise existing one immutable.
I'd rather you just release what we have for now, but if you want, I
can make those changes before 3.1.5 (or after).
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
There are two kinds of problems with a tool: either it should do a thing and
doesn't, or it shouldn't do a thing yet does. The first kind seems just a
limitation, you can address or tolerate it. The other one feels like the tool
is your enemy. — Michael Raskin
More information about the asdf-devel