good morning; On 2010-03-17, at 14:12 , Robert Goldman wrote:
> On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -4:04 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: >> This brings back one of the things I discussed long ago. TRAVERSE's >> behavior has to be documented and its behavior has to be specified >> and >> fixed. Either that or ASDF should stabilize a way to write >> extensions on >> top of it. I can not be hanging out there waiting for every >> improvement >> in ASDF to break our build system. >> >> Incidentally, another thing that breaks ECL is that INPUT-FILES >> now has >> a default method with signature ((o operation) ...) That broke our >> default methods with signature ((o T) (c compiled-file)) > > With all due respect, I think taking over primary methods for ANY > of the > existing ASDF generic functions and classes should be proclaimed to be > out of bounds for extenders. > > I propose that we modify the manual (if I can figure out where! the > chapter on the object model is a real mess) to specify that extenders > should only define primary methods on classes they define themselves. > Otherwise the ASDF maintainers reserve the right to make arbitrary > changes. > > Modifications to generic functions --- even generic functions whose > names are exported --- for classes --- even classes whose names are > exported --- should be limited to :around, :before and :after method > definitions. > > If this proposal meets with approval, we should try to figure out > where > it can live in the manual. one would be within reason to adopt the same constraints as the language standard: only the library itself is permitted to define methods (whether primary, or qualified) exclusively on "standard" classes. 11.1.2.1.2 #19 is very stingy, but it maintains a clear interface. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
