[closer-devel] Adding dynamic-wind to ContextL

[Pascal Costanza]

OK, I found another good reason why separating out dynamic-wind is a good idea: The implementation of dynamic-wind is independent of the CLOS MOP, and doesn't even require CLOS. So it should be much better portable than the rest of ContextL.

So I will do this. It will take a little while though, so don't hold your breath...


Best,
Pascal

On 15 Nov 2009, at 18:07, Attila Lendvai wrote:

>>> I can relate to that. I'd be fine if the dynamic-wind stuff came in its
>>> own defsystem, but is distributed with ContextL. It's like the "use the
>>> most specific function" rule of thumb.
>> 
>> Is that common practice in other CL libraries?
>> 
>> Do I understand the idea right? I set up the same package
>> and export the same symbols as before, but only implement
>> a subset of them, by loading only a subset of the implementation
>> files, and I do this by defining a system that only specifies that
>> subset of the implementation files. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> people (well, we) usually create a new separate system definition and
> a separate package for a standalone functionality. if the
> functionality is tightly coupled then it's a good idea to keep them in
> one repo, but we usually just set up also a new repo for the
> standalone part. and a new project was just born.
> 
> we do the same-repo/different-system practice for things like
> hu.dwim.util, which contains various other systems which are not
> really useful libraries in themselves, but at the same time we don't
> want to force their dependencies on all our libs that use parts of
> hu.dwim.util.
> 
> hu.dwim.wui is our web server, and it has several asdf systems that
> bring in more and more machinery that build on each other. then users
> can chose how much of it they need. we use a shared hu.dwim.wui
> package for them, but we keep the exports at the definition sites (as
> opposed to a central package.lisp), so that's not a big issue.
> 
> but back to dynamic wind: the cost for running a separate project
> seems big, but if you look at it from the point of view that it's just
> a new darcs repo next to contextl, then it doesn't seem so bad. so,
> i'd set up a new repo, a new package, move the code there, and then we
> have one more CL lib... :)
> 
> just some 0.02,
> 
> -- 
> attila

-- 
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc at p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Software Languages Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium