On 7/28/16 Jul 28 -10:47 PM, Faré wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> > wrote: >> Question: shouldn't I add this as >> >> (deftype FATAL-CONDITION ...) >> >> and try to use that everywhere, instead of writing duplicate code >> everywhere? That would also solve the "lists in match-condition-p" problem. >> > Indeed, that's an even better factorization. > >> I think the CCL folks agree that it was a mistake to make PROCESS-RESET >> a SERIOUS-CONDITION, but we have to live with it. >> > Yes. That's a good reason to export fatal-condition from uiop/image, > since it's a generally useful abstraction perfectly fit for the > purposes of uiop.
Hmmmm..... Actually, SERIOUS-CONDITION, as I read its documentation, is exactly the right abstraction -- it's just that CCL has broken it: "All conditions serious enough to require interactive intervention..." I don't want to export a new concept that is "Like SERIOUS-CONDITION, except patched for an implementation." I'll fix this internal to ASDF and leave it at that. Some day I hope that FATAL-CONDITION will wither away. Best, r
