Bundle operations

[Faré]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> Are these reasonable across different Lisp implementations?
>
> E.g., what would it mean to try to invoke a DLL-OP on ACL, Lispworks, or
> CCL?
>
> It seems like we are advertising a lot of functionality that we do not,
> in fact, support.  I'd like to prune this down in some way, eliminating
> operations on implementations that don't support them.
>
This is a trick question.

On implementations other than ECL (and maybe also MKCL and CLASP),
DLL-OP and LIB-OP will capture the outputs of extensions like CFFI,
and not of the main Lisp implementation.

Problem is, the extensions need to cooperate, and CFFI doesn't at this time.
i.e. they need to compile to .o before they transform the .o into a .so or .a
— then LIB-OP and DLL-OP can collect the .o and build a .a or .so respectively.

PS: if someone fixes CFFI, they should *also* use tmpize-pathname then
rename-file-overwriting-target to fix the same race condition that
otherwise plagues concurrent invocations of ASDF.

Is any CFFI maintainer listening?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
In its weak form, Utilitarianism sums up as a requirement
of observational consistency and behavioral relevance for ethical rules.