Take 2. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... > > Problems I found: > 1- you look for encodings in #p"SYS:ENCODINGS;" (upper case, > as per the standard), which is mapped to .../lib/mkcl-1.1.8/encodings/ > (lower case, as customary on Unix, thus as per the standard). > However, the directory and its files have upper case names, and > are therefore not found. This breaks asdf-encodings and thus the > test-encodings.script test. Note: you need to download the latest > version of asdf-encodings for this test to work. > The fix should be in the MKCL git repo master head now. > > 2- even assuming SYS:ENCODINGS; were found, it is not obvious at all > what is the right way to detect the presence of an encoding. > i.e. given the keyword :latin-2, what is the recommended way > to detect if an encoding is supported and/or to list supported > encodings? e.g. check (si::make-encoding :latin-2), > or see that mk-ext::latin-2 in bound to a keyword? > #'si::make-encoding returns NIL on failure plus a string as secondary value to explain the failure, it returns non-NIL on success. But that is surely awkward for your purpose. There is (si::all-encodings) that return a list of keywords each of which names a valid encoding. So I think that (member :latin-2 (si::all-encodings)) will do what you want. BTW, the gimmick of binding symbols in package :mk-ext (not to a keyword but to a hashtable) is a part of that legacy code that is going away soon (MKCL 1.2.0), so please do not rely on it. Use #'si::all-encodings instead. > 3- if I uncomment the lines: > ;;(unless (or #+ecl (use-ecl-byte-compiler-p)) > ;; (setf *load-system-operation* 'load-bundle-op)) > I get an error in test-logical-pathname, > with the .fasb apparently mapped to the wrong directory. > > I am still scratching my head on this one. It feels so much like an optimization concern of questionable wisdom... Is it the fear of hitting some wall I am unaware of, like the 1024 file descriptor one, or something else I haven't seen yet? Is it some concern about memory consumption in a development environment where memory use is through the roof already anyway? I don't get it, and I am ready to wait until this becomes a real/confirmed problem before I address it (I bet it will take a very long time to see that happen). Can't we just drop this one?
