Warning: Computing just-done stamp in plan NIL for action
fahree at gmail.com
Wed Oct 18 19:10:22 UTC 2017
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com> wrote:
> The systems working on older asdf versions is wrong?
Some of them might be. Defining systems with names not based on the
.asd filename was never fully supported. In all versions of ASDF, it
could lead to the system not being findable by its name, or its
aliasing another system, or being aliased by another system, or
throwing ASDF in an infinite loop as two systems aliased each other.
It's just that ASDF then failed to properly detect the situation and
warn the user. Now it tries to do the right thing, in a way that
actually works and is supported.
Now, I am not saying ASDF 3.3 is without fault. First, this is all out
of my cache, so I cannot swear what should or what shouldn't be the
expected behavior in this case. What I *can* say is that this case was
intended to be somewhat supported on a best effort basis but
Whether it should work better than that or not, however, it is still
*also* a bug in ASDF that the situation wasn't detected with a more
helpful error or warning being offered.
In summary: your use case was never fully supported and is now
explicitly deprecated. ASDF is still at fault for not providing a
better error behavior.
PS: I don't currently intend to spend too many cycles on this
particular issue, but as usual can be convinced otherwise.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Multiple instances of a same hacker with different context in his mental
cache count as multiple hackers wrt documentation and testing needs.
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:48 PM Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com>
>> > ASDF keeps inventing good reasons all the time...
>> Indeed , "inventing" in the original sense of the term: finding a
>> preexisting thing that no one suspected existed, but that was there of
>> all times. See my post about a previous occurrence of the pattern with
>> ASDF 3.0: https://fare.livejournal.com/176185.html — ASDF 3.3 was also
>> fixing a bug, doing it right, and discovering that some things had
>> been wrong all along.
More information about the asdf-devel