<div dir="ltr"><br><div>Do you plan to change the name of monolithic-fasl-op ? </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Faré <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fahree@gmail.com" target="_blank">fahree@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Speaking of asdf-bundle and ECL...<br>
<br>
In ASDF 3.1, I renamed the misnomer binary-op to deliver-asd-op;<br>
is there any user in the ECL world who cares about that old name from asdf-ecl?<br>
I could add a backward-compatible shim.<br>
<br>
While I'm at renaming misnomers, I'd like to rename fasl-op to<br>
compile-bundle-op and load-fasl-op to load-bundle-op. I expect these<br>
classes to be used, though, and do intend to have backward-compatible<br>
classes available — even though nothing shows in either the ECL<br>
sources or Quicklisp.<br>
<br>
[I need to confirm these renamings with the current ASDF maintainer, though].<br>
<div class=""><br>
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• <a href="http://fare.tunes.org" target="_blank">http://fare.tunes.org</a><br>
</div>Yield to temptation; it may never pass your way again.<br>
— Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Faré <<a href="mailto:fahree@gmail.com">fahree@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Regarding ASDF and ECL, it seemed to me that *load-system-operation*<br>
> had been designed<br>
> so I could/should do this in asdf/bundle:<br>
> (unless (use-ecl-byte-compiler-p)<br>
> (setf *load-system-operation* 'load-fasl-op))<br>
><br>
> Unhappily, when I did, I got 4 errors while testing. I found 1 bug in<br>
> ASDF, 2 bugs in test scripts that didn't expect load-fasl-op (good for<br>
> ECL to find them! all of them fixed), and what looks like one bug in<br>
> ECL.<br>
><br>
> If you uncomment the lines mentioned above in bundle.lisp,<br>
> modify this test so it uses load-fasl-op instead of load-op,<br>
> have it (trace c::builder load* perform-plan perform) if you want, and run it:<br>
> make t l=ecl t='test-xach-update-bug.script'<br>
><br>
> The .fasb is loaded, but fails to define the second-version package.<br>
> If you load it into another fresh image, it works.<br>
><br>
> Therefore, after adding two lines, I commented them out again.<br>
><br>
> Or is it per design that if you load a fasb, then another incompatible<br>
> version of a same-named, same location, fasb in the very same image,<br>
> the results are undefined? But it looks like it's working for a<br>
> regular fas, since the test works using load-op.<br>
><br>
> In any case, if some ECL maintainer has spare cycles, this deserves to<br>
> be investigated eventually.<br>
><br>
> I'm running ECL 13.5.1 (git:e7daee08e8cb7d4b4cea4bc27ce9c7839e236938)<br>
> on Linux amd64. It's the last version that doesn't bug out with<br>
> program-op because of the bug<br>
><br>
> If you tell me I should use load-fasl-op anyway, I will.<br>
><br>
> PS: Anton, if you have time, can you re-run tests after uncommenting<br>
> the mentioned lines in bundle.lisp? I'm interested in whether there<br>
> are regressions using ECL this way... it did error out on missing<br>
> dependencies in a few of ASDF's tests (including in asdf-encodings).<br>
> Otherwise, I think we have a release candidate with 3.1.0.92.<br>
><br>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• <a href="http://fare.tunes.org" target="_blank">http://fare.tunes.org</a><br>
> There are two kinds of pacifists: those who try to disarm the criminals, and<br>
> those who try to disarm the victims.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>My Best,<br><br>Dave Cooper, Genworks Support<br><a href="mailto:david.cooper@genworks.com" target="_blank">david.cooper@genworks.com</a>, <a href="http://dave.genworks.com" target="_blank">dave.genworks.com</a>(skype)<br>
USA: 248-327-3253(o), 1-248-330-2979(mobile)<br>UK: 0191 645 1699<br>
</div>