Syntax control code

[Faré]

It's in doc/syntax-control.md in the syntax-control branch (MR !86 on gitlab).
Unhappily, gitlab.common-lisp.net seems to be down right now:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf
If symptom persists, you may have to use my github backup in the meantime.
https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
>From a programmer's point of view, the user is a peripheral that types
when you issue a read request. — P. Williams


On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:24 AM, 73budden . <budden73 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! Where the document is found?
>
> 2018-01-06 3:53 GMT+03:00, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info>:
>> I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md 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 syntax-control.md, 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.
>>
>>
>