Misnamed secondary systems

[evenson]

I hear by retract my objections.

Thanks for the civility to my misplaced concern.

Years in CONS,
Mark

Sent from my iPad

> On 18 Nov 2016, at 16:50, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, supported: Having #p"foo.asd" define systems "foo/test",
> "foo/bar", "foo/baz" in addition to "foo". ASDF can even find them if
> you (asdf:make :foo/test) without having loaded foo first.
> 
> Unsupported: Having #p"foo.asd" define "foo-test", "bar",
> "foo-unparsable-mess_with.angry^#$*characters", etc.
> 
> Please use secondary systems that are properly named. I <3
> secondary/systems. The slash ensures ASDF can find your secondary
> systems.
> 
> See https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/51 for the
> proposed change: issuing a WARNING (not an ERROR, so your builds won't
> break, and the warning does not happen within a COMPILE-FILE either).
> 
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> Clairvoyant, n.:
>       A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that
> which is invisible to her patron — namely, that he is a blockhead.
>               — Ambrose Bierce
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
>> 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
>>> unacceptable.
>>> 
>>> 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,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>