On 3/29/10 Mar 29 -4:38 PM, Samium Gromoff wrote: > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:08:27 -0400, Faré <[email protected]> wrote: >> There is no portable way to distinguish between the many filesystem >> errors, anyway. >> Is there a good reason to not let LOAD report whatever error it wants? > > Hmm, LOAD is specified to raise a FILE-ERROR upon failure and I missed > that SBCL's SIMPLE-FILE-ERROR is a subtype of it, so we get the failed > upon pathname. > > The status quo is that currently ASDF provides the name of the system > in the condition, which we'd have to deduce from the pathname, if we > were to let LOAD do the error checking. > > In the cases of SBCL, ECL and CLisp FILE-ERROR-PATHNAME on a dead symlink > is reasonable and returns the pathname of the dead symlink, not what > it points to. > > But there is something that bothers me still, as there are those > multiple-systems-per-file .asd files, which makes pathname->system > mapping less trivial. How much this makes a problem in the real life > I cannot tell, just that it might be one in general. > > In the end, I'm not sure, it's been long since I touched desire. > > Is there some reason why the other choice mentioned --- catching an error from load and then re-signaling it with the additional information about the system --- cannot be used?
Best, R _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
