On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Anton Vodonosov <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think that preserving OPERATION semantics is really ruled out. > Lets consider it a little bit more? > > Is it true that old ASDF:OPERATION is semantically equivalent to the new > DOWNWARD-OPERATION? If yes, the proposal I made earlier looks appropriate: > > OPERATION inherit from DOWNWARD-OPERATION > COMPILE-OP inherit from OPERATION > LOAD-OP inherit from OPERATION > LOAD-SOURCE-OP inherit from OPERATION > > If we make so, these operations are backward compatible > and at the same time fit the new ASDF 3 design. > It's not backward compatible with systems that define methods on operation, and expect the method to be always calls for all operations. I admit I haven't kept track of how many of them there were while auditing quicklisp; a few, still, that will have to be updated — making the exercise self-defeating as a way to detect old code.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. — Arthur C. Clarke
