> Curiosity about a general > solution is what prompted this thread, Oh well, I'm not going to expect much to come out of it, then.
> With respect to package renaming, I've asked Michał Herda to comment on > whatever issues he'd had with "destructive package renaming" [1]. I > understand it as referring to the state-based global-reader implementation > of packages, which seems to entail well known problems like reentrancy and > readtable leakage. > No, I use rename-package, but I leave it as the programmer's responsibility to ensure that a package's canonical name while compiling a fasl will be a valid name for the correct package at load time. In the general case, this might entail instrumentation or shadowing of defpackage and make-package. No reader hack necessary. > [The XCVB] approach sounds like one motivated by version conflict between the > build system and system being built. Is that correct? > Yes. Having lots of dependencies means that "interesting" things may happen if you start compiling an incompatible version of a library you're using. Or even a compatible version that resets important data structures in one file that will only be filled in in another. > I wasn't really thinking about that, but now that I am I'm reminded of > various parts of your paper [2]. The bootstrapping, upgrading, and > distribution of ASDF seems very thorny indeed. > > [2]: http://fare.tunes.org/files/asdf3/asdf3-2014.html > Indeed. Thanks for being a good public. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org A president worth voting for wouldn't run for office.
