gitlab is back up now. Regards,
Erik. On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's in doc/syntax-control.md in the syntax-control branch (MR !86 on > gitlab). > Unhappily, gitlab.common-lisp.net seems to be down right now: > https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf > If symptom persists, you may have to use my github backup in the meantime. > https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md > > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• > http://fare.tunes.org > From a programmer's point of view, the user is a peripheral that types > when you issue a read request. — P. Williams > > > On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:24 AM, 73budden . <budde...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! Where the document is found? > > > > 2018-01-06 3:53 GMT+03:00, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info>: > >> I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture > the > >> terminology. > >> > >> Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control. > >> Results from Linux: > >> > >> build/results/allegro8_64-test.text > >> build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text > >> build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text > >> build/results/allegromodern8_64_s-test.text > >> build/results/allegromodern_64-test.text > >> build/results/allegromodern_64_s-test.text > >> > >> These failures seem to be due to NAMED-READTABLES not working properly > >> on these platforms, rather than on anything ASDF itself does. > >> > >> Concern: As I was reading over syntax-control.md, it was brought home > >> to me that the ASDF shared syntax is initialized to the *initial syntax* > >> on the host implementation, rather than the standard syntax of ANSI CL. > >> My understanding is that this is done for backwards-compatibility with > >> some QL systems that assume they have access to extended syntax from > >> some implementation(s). I'm concerned that this will create a > >> maintenance headache going forward just so someone *else* can avoid > >> making some minor clean-up. Should we just suck it up and make the > >> shared syntax start out with the initial syntax? Why not break it now, > >> and save ourselves trouble later? Also, it seems like "initial syntax" > >> is not well-defined, even on a single implementation, since ASDF might > >> be loaded at arbitrary times, possibly after modifications to the > >> "initial initial" readtable. Finally, going forward, people will be > >> yelling at *us* if implementations change their initial syntax. > >> > >> Unless there's a really important reason to keep this, I think we should > >> kill it. > >> > >> > > > > -- Bye, Erik. http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.