serious-condition

[Robert P. Goldman]

On 7/28/16 Jul 28 -10:47 PM, Faré wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>> Question: shouldn't I add this as
>>
>> (deftype FATAL-CONDITION ...)
>>
>> and try to use that everywhere, instead of writing duplicate code
>> everywhere?  That would also solve the "lists in match-condition-p" problem.
>>
> Indeed, that's an even better factorization.
> 
>> I think the CCL folks agree that it was a mistake to make PROCESS-RESET
>> a SERIOUS-CONDITION, but we have to live with it.
>>
> Yes. That's a good reason to export fatal-condition from uiop/image,
> since it's a generally useful abstraction perfectly fit for the
> purposes of uiop.

Hmmmm..... Actually, SERIOUS-CONDITION, as I read its documentation, is
exactly the right abstraction -- it's just that CCL has broken it:

"All conditions serious enough to require interactive intervention..."

I don't want to export a new concept that is "Like SERIOUS-CONDITION,
except patched for an implementation."

I'll fix this internal to ASDF and leave it at that. Some day I hope
that FATAL-CONDITION will wither away.

Best,
r