serious-condition

[Faré]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> 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:
>
> 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.
>
By that token, all of UIOP would be private, hoping that someday the
CL standard would fix pathnames, etc.

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.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
We are always in anarchy. But we pay a hefty price maintaining the
illusion that we aren't, and another one being
misled by the illusion.