clisp support [Re: Pushed ASDF fixes for CLISP, etc.]

Robert Goldman rpgoldman at
Thu Sep 1 23:38:12 UTC 2016

On 9/1/16 Sep 1 -6:15 PM, Sam Steingold wrote:
>> * Robert Goldman <ectbyqzna at fvsg.arg> [2016-09-01 12:34:11 -0500]:
>> Even worse, AFAICT clisp does not make its version number available to
>> the lisp context.
> CLISP, like all the other implementations striving for ANSI CL
> compliance, exports `lisp-implementation-version'
> (
> However, testing version numbers is not the best way to achieve
> cross-release compatibility; it is much better to test for specific
> behavior.

True, but this is not for code -- it's for regression testing.  For
regression-testing, I think it's fine if we say "on clisp, if the
version is less than or equal to 2.49, disable this test."

Until now we have just been saying "on clisp, disable this test."

Unfortunately, since I believe that clisp in git has not been bumped
beyond 2.49, reading LISP-IMPLEMENTATION-VERSION may not solve our problem.

If you will tell me how to distinguish between clisp 2.49 release and
clisp 2.50 release candidate, I can make that happen.  From my PoV, one
alternative would be to just make your LISP-IMPLEMENTATION-VERSION be
2.49.1, instead of 2.49.

If I don't have a way to distinguish between 2.49 and pre-release 2.50,
I am left with a choice of undesirable alternatives:

1. Go back to disabling this test on clisp, which will keep anyone from
making sure that behavior will be good in your coming release or

2. Treating release clisp as unsupported and no longer testing ASDF on it.

I understand that it's not ideal, but I'm testing up to 8 lisp
implementations, on three platforms.  I simply cannot track the 6 open
source versions off revision control systems. I must have releases, or I
cannot maintain my testing discipline.  Indeed, on windows, I must have
binary releases, since I do not have a build environment for Windows.


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list