> 1- if you wanted to find a system not properly named, you had to make > sure to have read the relevant .asd file beforehand. For subsystems that's a perfectly reasonable case.
> 2- if someone defined two systems with the same name in two different > files, then ASDF 2.014 could loop infinitely, and even 2.016 or later > might survive but behave in unstable way depending on how changes may > cause one system to be loaded instead of the other, then reloaded, > etc. If that were bugs which were fixable, then bringing up old ASDF releases doesn't make a compelling argument for prohibiting behavior. > ASDF is still backward-compatible. You can hush the warning if you > want—though it importantly tells you which systems could use a new > maintainer. That is a very unfair statement. I'm not even sure how to comment it. I'll only note that not willing to change a code without a good reason (because issueing this warning is a fad) is conservative in a good sense of this word. -- Daniel
