I'll get you a branch with the other setting for the syntax control, so you can 
just test with that instead of having to modify anything yourself. I'll get it 
pushed sometime tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay.

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 20:15, Anton Vodonosov <avodono...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Faré, hello. 
> Sorry for replying so long - I'm almost paralyzed by too many things I need 
> to deal with currently.
> I've started tests for the following commit. Will follow-up with the results.
> commit 2a5bc3bece8f97fdf64dc73a4e0544a55ae38f9d
> Author: Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net>
> Date:   Tue Jan 16 16:20:15 2018 -0600
>    Bump version to
> 02.02.2018, 23:06, "Faré" <fah...@gmail.com>:
>> Dear Anton,
>> can you run the below tests, in order or priority?
>> 1- Can you test what is currently in master, a.k.a., as a
>> release candidate for 3.3.2? It has been too long since 3.3.1 was
>> released with several bugs that have impacted Quicklisp users.
>> 2- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a
>> release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0? We want to merge syntax control,
>> but it's a significant enough change that we don't want it at the same
>> time as the bug fixes. Also...
>> 3- Can you test what is currently in the syntax-control branch as a
>> release candidate for 3.3.3 or 3.4.0, but with the following addition
>> just after you load asdf but before you start using it: (defparameter
>> uiop:*shared-readtable* (copy-readtable nil)) ? Indeed, we want to see
>> what breaks if we disable extensions implementation-specific reader
>> extensions. Test most important on CCL. I don't expect much breakage
>> on other implementations, but it may exist, too.
>> 4- While you're at it, can you also run the test, at least on sbcl,
>> with (defparameter uiop:*shared-readtable* uiop:*standard-readtable*))
>> ? This will detect what breaks when we make the default readtable
>> read-only.
>> The thing is, we really want to have this syntax control, but we also
>> want to preserve backward compatibility, and we can't make asdf
>> stricter until every client is fixed (famous last word; of course we
>> failed at exactly that in 3.3.1 — we could build correctly, but would
>> also spuriously rebuild if secondary systems were misnamed; fixed in
>> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md
>> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/86
>> http://blog.quicklisp.org/2018/01/build-failures-with-asdf-331.html
>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• 
>> http://fare.tunes.org
>> A friend once asked me if I had ever considered terrorism as a means for
>> political change. I replied that yes, I had considered it... and rejected it.
>> Because it only causes change for the worse.
>> Killing innocent people does not promote a culture of peaceful interaction.

Reply via email to