On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > On 7/31/16 Jul 31 -6:12 PM, Faré wrote:
>> The whole point of UIOP is to provide ASDF and other CL programs with >> portability abstractions that actually work in the current CL >> landscape. Not to pretend that that CL landscape magically matches >> some imagined ideal when that isn't the case. > > I think that's a stretch in this one case -- all the implementations > agree on CL:SERIOUS-CONDITION, with the exception of CCL, and I believe > they agree that they have simply made a mistake in their implementation. > > I'm reluctant to build into UIOP a new type definition whose description > exactly parallels the definition of SERIOUS-CONDITION in the spec. > If *that* is your interpretation, then my reply is then that uiop/common-lisp should shadow SERIOUS-CONDITION and export its version that is (and cl:serious-condition (not ccl::process-reset)) or some such. All UIOP and ASDF packages :mix uiop/common-lisp (which unlike other UIOP packages is NOT reexported by UIOP itself -- you have to explicitly :use it instead of :common-lisp if you want). > Until now we have limited ASDF and UIOP to plugging holes in the spec > (like the absence of good enough pathname support). We haven't been > also adding a shadow implementation of the spec for cases where the > implementations simply got it wrong. That feels like mission-creep to me. > Oh yes we have been adding these shadow implementations: it's uiop/common-lisp. > The closest I'd be willing to go is to remove UIOP:*FATAL-CONDITIONS* > and replace it with a type definition for UIOP:FATAL-CONDITION. But > even that makes me feel bad. I guess we can keep this for now, but I'll > be a lot happier when it's simply an alias for CL:SERIOUS-CONDITION. > I believe I added UIOP:*FATAL-CONDITIONS* so that users could customize the use of WITH-FATAL-CONDITION-HANDLER. I believe it's useful. But please remove *fatal-condition-exceptions*. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it. — G.K. Chesterton
