Version 126.96.36.199 has been pushed
fahree at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 02:23:05 UTC 2016
I gave a cursory look at your PR curently culminating at
1- Why do you (setf (fdefinition '%wait-process-result)
#'wait-process-result) ? I can't find any mention of that symbol in
quicklisp besides copies of asdf or uiop. I propose you kill that old
symbol and rename the new one to whatever you prefer. wait-process or
process-wait, without -result, would be nice. Though whether you use
process as prefix or suffix, try to make it coherent in all function
2- Similarly, when deciding what to do with internals (or even
externals), grep'ing the contents of quicklisp is good policy. Though
regarding external symbol, even if no one in quicklisp uses it, it's
good citizenship to go through a complete 2-year obsolescence cycle.
3- I find %if-on-lispworks7+ particularly ugly. I'd create a feature
and add it in common-lisp.lisp. But I admit this is a weak preference.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
There are three types of people in the world;
those who can count, and those who can't.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> On 8/21/16 Aug 21 -7:49 PM, Elias Pipping wrote:
>> Dear Robert, dear list,
>> I’m happy to see the first changes to run-program in ASDF-188.8.131.52. I’m now working more pragmatically towards making others mergeable. As usual, the list can be viewed at
>> As of right now, it looks like this:
>> 8e4f7fd Add and use process-info class
>> ec74b27 Add %if-on-lispworks?+
>> ba8c24e Bug fix: Exit code with LispWorks 7
>> a35fbe2 Bug fix: Store exit code with Allegro CL
>> 104da21 Change :if-*-exists default to :supersede
>> 4ef7409 Add and use not-implemented-error
>> 6359a4b Add file-stream*-p
>> c2d5de3 Add and use parameter-error. Reorganise errors.
>> 7ae0bcf Fix warnings on ABCL, etc.
>> fb3dd9a Add and use close-streams
>> 4971606 Add %process-info-*put getters
>> c7570da Tests: Cover %run-program and %wait-process-result
>> 1f43e5d Do not pass unnecessary keywords to SBCL
> Should we have another iteration on this, putting it into a topic branch
> and letting me test it on Windows, Mac, and Linux?
> TBH, I have never used merge requests on gitlab or github (except as
> submitting them), so I don't know the workflow from the recipient side.
> My use of git is mostly limited to command-line.
More information about the asdf-devel