Do you plan to change the name of monolithic-fasl-op ?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > Speaking of asdf-bundle and ECL... > > In ASDF 3.1, I renamed the misnomer binary-op to deliver-asd-op; > is there any user in the ECL world who cares about that old name from > asdf-ecl? > I could add a backward-compatible shim. > > While I'm at renaming misnomers, I'd like to rename fasl-op to > compile-bundle-op and load-fasl-op to load-bundle-op. I expect these > classes to be used, though, and do intend to have backward-compatible > classes available — even though nothing shows in either the ECL > sources or Quicklisp. > > [I need to confirm these renamings with the current ASDF maintainer, > though]. > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• > http://fare.tunes.org > Yield to temptation; it may never pass your way again. > — Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love" > > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Regarding ASDF and ECL, it seemed to me that *load-system-operation* > > had been designed > > so I could/should do this in asdf/bundle: > > (unless (use-ecl-byte-compiler-p) > > (setf *load-system-operation* 'load-fasl-op)) > > > > Unhappily, when I did, I got 4 errors while testing. I found 1 bug in > > ASDF, 2 bugs in test scripts that didn't expect load-fasl-op (good for > > ECL to find them! all of them fixed), and what looks like one bug in > > ECL. > > > > If you uncomment the lines mentioned above in bundle.lisp, > > modify this test so it uses load-fasl-op instead of load-op, > > have it (trace c::builder load* perform-plan perform) if you want, and > run it: > > make t l=ecl t='test-xach-update-bug.script' > > > > The .fasb is loaded, but fails to define the second-version package. > > If you load it into another fresh image, it works. > > > > Therefore, after adding two lines, I commented them out again. > > > > Or is it per design that if you load a fasb, then another incompatible > > version of a same-named, same location, fasb in the very same image, > > the results are undefined? But it looks like it's working for a > > regular fas, since the test works using load-op. > > > > In any case, if some ECL maintainer has spare cycles, this deserves to > > be investigated eventually. > > > > I'm running ECL 13.5.1 (git:e7daee08e8cb7d4b4cea4bc27ce9c7839e236938) > > on Linux amd64. It's the last version that doesn't bug out with > > program-op because of the bug > > > > If you tell me I should use load-fasl-op anyway, I will. > > > > PS: Anton, if you have time, can you re-run tests after uncommenting > > the mentioned lines in bundle.lisp? I'm interested in whether there > > are regressions using ECL this way... it did error out on missing > > dependencies in a few of ASDF's tests (including in asdf-encodings). > > Otherwise, I think we have a release candidate with 3.1.0.92. > > > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• > http://fare.tunes.org > > There are two kinds of pacifists: those who try to disarm the criminals, > and > > those who try to disarm the victims. > > -- My Best, Dave Cooper, Genworks Support david.coo...@genworks.com, dave.genworks.com(skype) USA: 248-327-3253(o), 1-248-330-2979(mobile) UK: 0191 645 1699
