Can we give up :INTERACTIVE I/O for RUN-PROGRAM?

Elias Pipping pipping.elias at
Wed Nov 9 20:55:40 UTC 2016

> On 3 Nov 2016, at 16:18, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at> wrote:
> Interactive I/O is not reliable across implementations, and is also
> difficult to test.
> Do we really need to support this?  If you, as a programmer, really want
> interactive I/O, you should probably write your own wrapper to manage
> I/O to the program.  Some enterprising soul could even write a clone of
> "expect" for CL.
> I'd rather lose the :interactive option, than have it and have it work
> unreliably.
> So I'm soliciting comments -- particularly from those who think we
> should keep it.
> It seems like some people also have a means to search Quicklisp to
> screen suggestions like this.  I'd also welcome feedback based on
> libraries in QL.
> thanks,
> r

Dear Robert,

I believe I’ve now addressed all the issues interactive output was having in

It’s indeed rather unfortunate that we cannot test interactive output in a reliable fashion.
I think it’s sufficiently important a feature, though, that we should not remove it
unless it’s broken beyond repair, which I believe it is not (the necessary repair in
this case is contained in 2-3 merge requests).


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list