Faré fahree at
Mon Aug 1 02:06:01 UTC 2016

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at> wrote:
> On 7/31/16 Jul 31 -6:12 PM, Faré wrote:

>> The whole point of UIOP is to provide ASDF and other CL programs with
>> portability abstractions that actually work in the current CL
>> landscape. Not to pretend that that CL landscape magically matches
>> some imagined ideal when that isn't the case.
> I think that's a stretch in this one case -- all the implementations
> agree on CL:SERIOUS-CONDITION, with the exception of CCL, and I believe
> they agree that they have simply made a mistake in their implementation.
> I'm reluctant to build into UIOP a new type definition whose description
> exactly parallels the definition of SERIOUS-CONDITION in the spec.
If *that* is your interpretation, then my reply is then that
uiop/common-lisp should shadow SERIOUS-CONDITION and export its
version that is (and cl:serious-condition (not ccl::process-reset)) or
some such.

All UIOP and ASDF packages :mix uiop/common-lisp (which unlike other
UIOP packages is NOT reexported by UIOP itself -- you have to
explicitly :use it instead of :common-lisp if you want).

> Until now we have limited ASDF and UIOP to plugging holes in the spec
> (like the absence of good enough pathname support).  We haven't been
> also adding a shadow implementation of the spec for cases where the
> implementations simply got it wrong.  That feels like mission-creep to me.
Oh yes we have been adding these shadow implementations: it's uiop/common-lisp.

> The closest I'd be willing to go is to remove UIOP:*FATAL-CONDITIONS*
> and replace it with a type definition for UIOP:FATAL-CONDITION.  But
> even that makes me feel bad.  I guess we can keep this for now, but I'll
> be a lot happier when it's simply an alias for CL:SERIOUS-CONDITION.
I believe I added UIOP:*FATAL-CONDITIONS* so that users could
customize the use of WITH-FATAL-CONDITION-HANDLER. I believe it's

But please remove *fatal-condition-exceptions*.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same
as to be right in doing it. — G.K. Chesterton

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list