<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><br></div>Hi Robert,<div><br></div><div>I have a couple of libraries that make their own operation and component classes, asdf-dso, asdf-objects and smarkup come to mind. See <a href="https://github.com/slyrus/asdf-objects">https://github.com/slyrus/asdf-objects</a> and <a href="https://github.com/slyrus/smarkup">https://github.com/slyrus/smarkup</a>.</div><div><br></div><div>Cyrus</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On Jan 1, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Robert P. Goldman <<a href="mailto:rpgoldman@sift.info">rpgoldman@sift.info</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Recent experience shows that changes leading to ASDF 3 have changed the<br>way one must specify new operation classes, in a way that is not<br>backward-compatible. Thanks to Faré for helping me diagnose problems in<br>one such system.<br><br>I will be looking into this, and hope to add at least one new test to<br>ensure that we are probing this important aspect of ASDF going forward.<br><br>Related to this, does anyone have a good sense of which quicklisp<br>systems might contain new operation and component classes?<br><br>thanks,<br>R<br><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>