Syntax control code

73budden . budden73 at
Sun Jan 7 10:24:04 UTC 2018

Hi! Where the document is found?

2018-01-06 3:53 GMT+03:00, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at>:
> I just pushed an edit of in which I try to capture the
> terminology.
> Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control.
> Results from Linux:
> build/results/allegro8_64-test.text
> build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern8_64_s-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern_64-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern_64_s-test.text
> These failures seem to be due to NAMED-READTABLES not working properly
> on these platforms, rather than on anything ASDF itself does.
> Concern:  As I was reading over, it was brought home
> to me that the ASDF shared syntax is initialized to the *initial syntax*
> on the host implementation, rather than the standard syntax of ANSI CL.
> My understanding is that this is done for backwards-compatibility with
> some QL systems that assume they have access to extended syntax from
> some implementation(s).  I'm concerned that this will create a
> maintenance headache going forward just so someone *else* can avoid
> making some minor clean-up.  Should we just suck it up and make the
> shared syntax start out with the initial syntax?  Why not break it now,
> and save ourselves trouble later?  Also, it seems like "initial syntax"
> is not well-defined, even on a single implementation, since ASDF might
> be loaded at arbitrary times, possibly after modifications to the
> "initial initial" readtable.  Finally, going forward, people will be
> yelling at *us* if implementations change their initial syntax.
> Unless there's a really important reason to keep this, I think we should
> kill it.

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list