why does ASDF ask to please only define system/test?

Daniel Kochmański daniel at turtleware.eu
Tue Dec 11 22:01:06 UTC 2018

> 1- if you wanted to find a system not properly named, you had to make
> sure to have read the relevant .asd file beforehand.
For subsystems that's a perfectly reasonable case.

> 2- if someone defined two systems with the same name in two different
> files, then ASDF 2.014 could loop infinitely, and even 2.016 or later
> might survive but behave in unstable way depending on how changes may
> cause one system to be loaded instead of the other, then reloaded,
> etc.
If that were bugs which were fixable, then bringing up old ASDF
releases doesn't make a compelling argument for prohibiting behavior.

> ASDF is still backward-compatible. You can hush the warning if you
> want—though it importantly tells you which systems could use a new
> maintainer.
That is a very unfair statement. I'm not even sure how to comment it.
I'll only note that not willing to change a code without a good reason
(because issueing this warning is a fad) is conservative in a good
sense of this word.


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list