Syntax control code

[Erik Huelsmann]

gitlab is back up now.

Regards,

Erik.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Bye,

Erik.

http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20180107/2dab8a68/attachment.html>