I hear by retract my objections. Thanks for the civility to my misplaced concern.
Years in CONS, Mark Sent from my iPad > On 18 Nov 2016, at 16:50, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, supported: Having #p"foo.asd" define systems "foo/test", > "foo/bar", "foo/baz" in addition to "foo". ASDF can even find them if > you (asdf:make :foo/test) without having loaded foo first. > > Unsupported: Having #p"foo.asd" define "foo-test", "bar", > "foo-unparsable-mess_with.angry^#$*characters", etc. > > Please use secondary systems that are properly named. I <3 > secondary/systems. The slash ensures ASDF can find your secondary > systems. > > See https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/51 for the > proposed change: issuing a WARNING (not an ERROR, so your builds won't > break, and the warning does not happen within a COMPILE-FILE either). > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org > Clairvoyant, n.: > A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that > which is invisible to her patron — namely, that he is a blockhead. > — Ambrose Bierce > > >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> >> wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> >> >
