> * Faré <[email protected]> [2013-01-20 22:46:35 -0500]: > > Of all the lisp implementations, CLISP has given me the most trouble > with ASDF upgrade. Unlike all other Lisps, it won't let me undefine > functions and redefine them in the same fasl file. Somehow, I always > end up with CLISP either complaining that a function signature doesn't > match (was or wasn't a generic function with an incompatible > lambda-list), because I couldn't undefine it, or that it is undefined > and never redefined, because I undefined it and CLISP throws away my > redefinition somehow. I tried to selectively unintern symbols for > functions thus upgraded, but that also fails. Yet all these things > work in about all other Lisps. > > In the end, I punted: I just rename the old ASDF package to > ASDF-${version} early on, but that messes with any package that :use's > ASDF, and then CLISP will complain again, unless ASDF is the very > first thing upgraded before anything uses it. > > Could CLISP be made more upgrade-friendly?
When you actually do change function signatures, a warning is, IMO, quite appropriate. I am not really sure why you want to silence them. > (another thing I don't understand that may or may not be related is > the .lib output files produced together with a fasl, > when and how they are used, and what I should or should not do with them.) http://clisp.org/impnotes/require.html#lib-files -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) X 11.0.11103000 http://www.childpsy.net/ http://openvotingconsortium.org http://www.PetitionOnline.com/tap12009/ http://dhimmi.com Good judgment comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgment. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
