I don't read fare's email as forbidding secondary systems, just those that are misnamed. So I don't think he's proposing to remove features, just check compliance with the naming convention.
Maybe the proposal at hand is not described crisply enough. Sent from my iPad > On Nov 18, 2016, at 07:58, Mark Evenson <even...@panix.com> wrote: > > >> On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <even...@panix.com> wrote: >>>> I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. >>>> Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) >>>> finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. >>>> Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, >>>> so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING >>>> when the condition is detected, and at some point, >>>> make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR. >>> >>> I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me >>> on the current ASDF for a long time. >> >> What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ? > > I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will > take a long time to unwind. Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I > expect to be around for the lifetime of that version. > > As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to > remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems > unacceptable. > > Please put it in ASDF4. > > Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I happen > to have a strong one here. > > With respect, > Mark > >
