On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Is it possible that somehow the compilation of asdf-ecl is recording
some information about the package that is somehow damaged by the
package surgery?
I will dig into that later during the weekend. I think the point
good afternoon;
On 2010-03-18, at 00:03 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh, there is nothing with TRAVERSE's output _right now_.
Let me clarify this again:
- The fact that TRAVERSE now
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:55 PM, james anderson james.ander...@setf.dewrote:
if asdf were to adopt an 11.1.2.1.2-rule, asdf-ecl.lisp would require a
change.
it would not be supported for an extension to extend 'asdf:load-op such
that load-op itself specialized an operation-done-p :around
good afternoon.
On 2010-03-18, at 15:02 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:55 PM, james anderson
james.ander...@setf.de wrote:
if asdf were to adopt an 11.1.2.1.2-rule, asdf-ecl.lisp would
require a change.
it would not be supported for an extension to extend
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
OTOH, it's probably a good idea to figure out the implications of such a
rule on true extensions, so I don't think James's attentions here are
wasted.
Me neither, I just wanted to emphasize that it is not a one-sided
On 18 March 2010 11:09, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
Why not using the scheme
(defpackage :asdf-boot
...)
; all new code using asdf-boot package
; rename package asdf - asdf-old
; rename package asdf-boot - asdf
instead of manually moving the
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:18 PM, james anderson james.ander...@setf.dewrote:
good afternoon.
On 2010-03-18, at 15:02 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:55 PM, james anderson james.ander...@setf.dewrote:
if asdf were to adopt an 11.1.2.1.2-rule, asdf-ecl.lisp would
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:29 PM, james anderson james.ander...@setf.dewrote:
On 2010-03-18, at 16:23 , Faré wrote:
[ ...]
But I think ASDF ought to make a best effort, so that you can at
the very
least upgrade ASDF when installed as part of Common-Lisp-Controller
and
similar
: Juanjo
I have been reading the list of things that can, have and cannot be done and
it is way more complex than I had expected. Wouldn't it make sense to split
asdf.lisp into two files? asdf-boot.lisp to set up everything _only_ if we
need to redefine ASDF functions, classes and other
This is an idea that has been long floating in the back of my mind, and was
brought back to life by these comments
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f99a69797eda1caf
The problem is that many people use *.asd files to do things like building
up packages, creating operations,
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off this time around, IMO.
Suggestion: if the group thinks this is a good idea, let's
1. Add a future plans section to the manual
2. Insert a write-up about this proposal in
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.infowrote:
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off this time around, IMO.
I agree that it is hard to get this right. However, would it be ok if I
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -4:31 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off
On 18 March 2010 16:41, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
This is an idea that has been long floating in the back of my mind, and was
brought back to life by these comments
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f99a69797eda1caf
The problem is
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -5:11 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com
mailto:fah...@gmail.com wrote:
What about instead investing in XCVB?
As much as I would like to have something simplify my life, it is not my
choice to use one system
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.infowrote:
Right. But do we have a clear understanding of what should and
shouldn't go in there? E.g.:
1. currently if you need an ASDF extension in order to make a defsystem
understandable [...]
2. New class and method
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.infowrote:
I'm reluctant to endorse this suggestion, because it means that we will
spawn YA information source to track. We'll have:
1. launchpad
I ignored ASDF was using this. I have submitted a wishlist ticket but I was
not
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, I think that supporting ASDF is important, but
ultimately an evolutionary dead-end.
That is hard to read from the project leaders. I feel rather neutral about
this and please do not feel offended by the following
On 18 March 2010 18:37, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, I think that supporting ASDF is important, but
ultimately an evolutionary dead-end.
That is hard to read from the project
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -5:27 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
I'm reluctant to endorse this suggestion, because it means that we will
spawn YA information source to track. We'll have:
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -1:44 PM, Faré wrote:
: fare
: janderson
But I think ASDF ought to make a best effort, so that you can at
the very
least upgrade ASDF when installed as part of Common-Lisp-Controller
and
similar management layers (that do use package ASDF).
as a step in that direction,
I think we've come to some conclusions about the /general/ problem of
modifying the ASDF operations and the hazards of using CLOS in an
exported API. But I wonder if we've answered the original issue, viz:
Juanjo --- do you have what you need to make asdf-ecl.lisp work again
(wrt traverse)? Is
22 matches
Mail list logo
