On 6/16/15 Jun 16 -2:08 PM, Faré wrote:
> Robert, should we export load-asd from asdf?
Yes, that sounds right. I will do so now, unless you want to
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would d
Robert, should we export load-asd from asdf?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves
upon execution. — Robert Sewell
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mark H. David
Dat
Robert Goldman wrote:
> Why would that be a win over just calling FORMATTED-VERSION on demand?
>
> I.e., we could just provide something like
>
> (defgeneric FORMATTED-VERSION (C &optional version)
> (:method ((COMPONENT C) &optional version)
> (or version (component-version c)))
>
> and t
On 6/16/15 Jun 16 -10:33 AM, Didier Verna wrote:
> Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify: I am NOT saying Pascal is wrong to want these things
>> or to do them himself. And I AM saying that ASDF should make it
>> possible for him to do so.
>
> ASDF could call FORMATTED-VERSION itself to
Robert Goldman writes:
> On 6/16/15 Jun 16 -9:31 AM, Didier Verna wrote:
>> Robert Goldman wrote:
>>
>>> Now: a request for management purposes: Didier, would you be so kind
>>> as to describe the proposal (I think cut and paste out of your earlier
>>> emails would do admirably) in a ticket on
Faré writes:
>> “The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a
>> dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to
>> keep the man from touching the equipment.” -- Carl Bass CEO Autodesk
>
> This is a recycled old joke about airplane cockpits. I don't kno
Robert Goldman wrote:
> Just to clarify: I am NOT saying Pascal is wrong to want these things
> or to do them himself. And I AM saying that ASDF should make it
> possible for him to do so.
ASDF could call FORMATTED-VERSION itself to initialize the
corresponding slot (if any), and refrain fr
On 6/16/15 Jun 16 -10:24 AM, Didier Verna wrote:
> Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> So what happens when the programmer updates the human readable version
>> and not the canonical version, or vice versa? Wouldn't it be better
>> to functionally derive one of these two forms from the other? E.g.,
>> (
Robert Goldman wrote:
> So what happens when the programmer updates the human readable version
> and not the canonical version, or vice versa? Wouldn't it be better
> to functionally derive one of these two forms from the other? E.g.,
> (defgeneric formatted-version (component version-spec))
>> I kind of like the general idea of Pascal's proposal: separate a
>> human-readable-version-string from an asdf-comparable-version-string.
>> The exact names are to be determined. Maybe, by analogy with name and
>> long-name, description and long-description, we could make that
>> version (used b
On 6/16/15 Jun 16 -9:31 AM, Didier Verna wrote:
> Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> Now: a request for management purposes: Didier, would you be so kind
>> as to describe the proposal (I think cut and paste out of your earlier
>> emails would do admirably) in a ticket on launchpad.net?
>
> OK. I will
Robert Goldman wrote:
> Now: a request for management purposes: Didier, would you be so kind
> as to describe the proposal (I think cut and paste out of your earlier
> emails would do admirably) in a ticket on launchpad.net?
OK. I will also add Pascal's suggestion to have both a canonical and
I would welcome a restructuring of the version comparison protocol along
the lines that Didier suggests: make sure all the components of the
protocol are properly handled by generic functions, and allow system
developers and maintainers to manage their own version comparison logic
should they so c
Faré wrote:
> I kind of like the general idea of Pascal's proposal: separate a
> human-readable-version-string from an asdf-comparable-version-string.
> The exact names are to be determined. Maybe, by analogy with name and
> long-name, description and long-description, we could make that
> versio
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon
wrote:
> Didier Verna writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in general, I don't like the way ASDF tries to force you to comply with
>> its own design choices and policy. This is especially true for component
>> versioning. ASDF complains that it doesn't l
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote:
> Alternatively, we could have:
>
> (defsystem :foo
>:version-major 1
>:version-minor 0
>:version-release 42
>:human-readable-version-string "1.0.gamma.XLII/pescadero:whasa")
>
> or:
>
> (defsystem :foo
>:version (1 0 42)
>:human-readable
Didier Verna writes:
> Hi,
>
> in general, I don't like the way ASDF tries to force you to comply with
> its own design choices and policy. This is especially true for component
> versioning. ASDF complains that it doesn't like my version numbers
> (which, in fact, are not only numbers ;-), but
Drake Wilson wrote:
> Curiosity: what _are_ your version numbers like, and how do you
> compare them? It was a little too hard to find this readily from your
> website. Maybe seeing a good example would help.
A version specifier has a major and a minor number, a status (alpha,
beta, release
Didier Verna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in general, I don't like the way ASDF tries to force you to comply with
> its own design choices and policy. This is especially true for component
> versioning. ASDF complains that it doesn't like my version numbers
> (which, in fact, are not only numbers ;-), but I
I wrote:
> Thoughts ? Will this be enough to satisfy ASDF ?
Not quite. I missed NORMALIZE-VERSION (ASDF attempting to be clever
and doing all sorts of nasty DWIM stuff on version numbers).
Attached patch would solve the problem, it seems. But then again, I
don't really know what I'm doin
Hi,
in general, I don't like the way ASDF tries to force you to comply with
its own design choices and policy. This is especially true for component
versioning. ASDF complains that it doesn't like my version numbers
(which, in fact, are not only numbers ;-), but I'm not ready to give up
on them
21 matches
Mail list logo
