RFC: new error class

[Elias Pipping]

This sounds like a good idea to me. The distinction of a parameter error, a not-implemented error and a known bug in an implementation (that one I hadn't added yet, only proposed) is one that the user is probably not interested in at all. So this makes for a good replacement for all three.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 22 Aug 2016, at 18:50, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> 
> What about an UNSUPPORTED-FUNCTIONALITY ERROR subclass?
> 
> I was thinking of putting it in UIOP, and exported, for the use of cases
> where a particular implementation doesn't support an operation.
> 
> This might make it much easier to handle implementations that don't
> support all operations, PARTICULARLY in test cases.
> 
> Best,
> r
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20160822/59d95f0b/attachment.html>