Misnamed secondary systems
Robert P. Goldman
rpgoldman at sift.net
Fri Nov 18 14:22:01 UTC 2016
I don't read fare's email as forbidding secondary systems, just those that are misnamed. So I don't think he's proposing to remove features, just check compliance with the naming convention.
Maybe the proposal at hand is not described crisply enough.
Sent from my iPad
> On Nov 18, 2016, at 07:58, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:
>>>> I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems.
>>>> Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test)
>>>> finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems.
>>>> Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess,
>>>> so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING
>>>> when the condition is detected, and at some point,
>>>> make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
>>> I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
>> What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ?
> I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will
> take a long time to unwind. Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I
> expect to be around for the lifetime of that version.
> As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to
> remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems
> Please put it in ASDF4.
> Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I happen
> to have a strong one here.
> With respect,
More information about the asdf-devel