not only this, if the symbol constituency changes, the notion of
'undefined' frequently yields results far from the intended.
not to mention the (perhaps continuable) errors.
yes, one needs an operator with ensure-like semantics, which is
intended to operate on packages which may already
On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -6:02 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Current ECL HEAD comes with asdf version 1.604, but trying to load
upstreams asdf.lisp won't work because of
A package with the name ASDF-EXTENSIONS already exists.
Indeed, CLHS DEFPACKAGE says
If one of the supplied
Thanks to Tobias for his several bug reports. I committed fixes to the issues,
building my own ensure-package (in a labels in cl-user, because we don't
have a package in which to do a defun yet).
RPG:
Follow-up question: why do we need the ASDF-EXTENSIONS nickname? Can
we sacrifice this
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks to Tobias for his several bug reports. I committed fixes to the issues,
building my own ensure-package (in a labels in cl-user, because we don't
have a package in which to do a defun yet).
There's another thing bugging me:
Could we add a PERFORM to
