Version has been pushed

Elias Pipping elias.pipping at
Tue Aug 23 11:42:06 UTC 2016

> On 23 Aug 2016, at 04:23, Faré <fahree at> wrote:
> Dear Elias,

Dear Faré,

> 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
> names.

Great, the fewer unnecessary names the better. I was wondering about the process prefix/suffix already. I found alive-p (vs. process-alive-p) and status (vs. process-status) too short and not self-explanatory. But then, I found process-close-streams too long (albeit not by a lot so maybe that’s actually a good name) and process-close confusing weird. So currently, I have, among the exported functions:

 - process-alive-p
 - terminate-process
 - wait-process
 - close-streams

> 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.

The sources for every project on quicklisp? Is there a central repository that holds all of those, or a simple way to obtain them?

> 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.

Yes, I found it terribly ugly, too. I wasn’t aware that adding to *features* was something you’re allowed to do. I’ve now done that in

and the code has ended up looking quite a bit nicer again, in particular because with #+ instead of macros I don’t need to use find-symbol* and (declare (ignore)) will work.

I’ve also pushed a fix for the LispWorks 6 warning in

(thanks a lot to Robert for helping me debug that!).

If we can agree on Robert’s unsupported-functionality error class, I’ll work that into the merge request, too.


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list