> I’m both asking how they should be named, and how to advertise them for 
> programmatic consumption.
> For example, and automatic testing program such as that included in 
> quicklisp, should not try to stand-alone
> load systems which are not designed to work stand-alone. We have to work 
> around this by artificially
> making all systems “work” in standalone enough to fool quicklisp.
> Can you explain the quicklisp constraint? How does it find all systems?
> One simple expedient for this quicklisp issue -- if I understand it correctly 
> -- would be to have a test-op default perform method for all systems that 
> simply succeeds. It should probably by default issue a warning that no "real" 
> test method exists, and that warning should have a particular type so that it 
> can be muffled by quicklisp. Probably also we should allow the programmer of 
> the original system to make a test-op no-op method that emits no warning 
> (because the system is intended not to be testable).

As I understand quicklisp, it ties to compile each system in a top-level sbcl, 
and asserts that that works.  
As far as I know that is the only test it does.  I don’t believe it does 
anything special with test-op.

Reply via email to