All my lisps finished, reports are updated.
The summary remains the same.
The lisp tested:
abcl-1.2.1-fasl42-linux-x86
abcl-1.3.0-fasl42-linux-x86
abcl-1.3.1-fasl42-linux-x86
abcl-1.3.2-fasl42-linux-x86
ccl-1.10-r16196-f96-linux-x86
ccl-1.8-r15286m-f95-linux-x86
ccl-1.9-r15756-f96-l
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:
>> SYSTEM-MUTABLE-P take a real *SYSTEM* as argument, instead of having an
>> odd API where only a system-NAME is acceptable.
>
>
> note:
>
> CL-USER> (asdf:coerce-name (asdf:find-system :hu.dwim.def))
> "hu.dwim.def"
>
>
>> I think having a
> SYSTEM-MUTABLE-P take a real *SYSTEM* as argument, instead of having an
> odd API where only a system-NAME is acceptable.
note:
CL-USER> (asdf:coerce-name (asdf:find-system :hu.dwim.def))
"hu.dwim.def"
> I think having a confusing name that we deprecate is better than taking
> the good name,
On 7/15/15 Jul 15 -2:23 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:
>> Well, if we change the API to add a boolean slot to SYSTEM, we could
>
> this may be naive, but what i meant is a very simple change:
> introduce an exported SYSTEM-MUTABLE-P, together with a SETF version,
> that messes around with the current h
> Well, if we change the API to add a boolean slot to SYSTEM, we could
this may be naive, but what i meant is a very simple change:
introduce an exported SYSTEM-MUTABLE-P, together with a SETF version,
that messes around with the current hashtable based implementation.
IOW, it's pretty much just
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> On 7/14/15 Jul 14 -6:04 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to remove the export of *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*. It hasn't
>>> been used in a released version of ASDF AFAIK, so it seems benign to
>>> remove it.
>>
>> isn't that also the case
> (load (merge-pathnames "setup.lisp" *quicklisp-home*))
Minor nit: this code isn't compliant ANSI CL.
(make-pathname :name "setup" :type "lisp" :defaults *quicklisp-home*)
is the compliant version.
Indeed, if *default-pathname-defaults* has non-null HOST and DEVICE
that differ from *quicklisp-home
> How would people feel about keeping REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM now (so as
> not to break existing Genworks code), with it becoming deprecated later?
> We would immediately put in IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM-P, as Attila suggests, as
> a the permanent name?
>
If we are the only ones using it then you can a
On 7/14/15 Jul 14 -6:04 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:
>> I'm inclined to remove the export of *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*. It hasn't
>> been used in a released version of ASDF AFAIK, so it seems benign to
>> remove it.
>
> isn't that also the case for REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM?
>
> if that export sticks in
On 7/14/15 Jul 14 -6:04 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:
>> I'm inclined to remove the export of *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*. It hasn't
>> been used in a released version of ASDF AFAIK, so it seems benign to
>> remove it.
>
> isn't that also the case for REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM?
>
> if that export sticks in
> I'm inclined to remove the export of *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*. It hasn't
> been used in a released version of ASDF AFAIK, so it seems benign to
> remove it.
isn't that also the case for REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM?
if that export sticks in the release then it'll be a headache down the
road (assuming
On 7/14/15 Jul 14 -3:58 PM, Dave Cooper wrote:
>
> >
> > if it's still feasible i suggest to replace REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM
> > with (SETF SYSTEM-MUTABLE-P) and stop exporting *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*.
> >
> I think it's too late to make changes for 3.1.5.
>
> Indeed, it's p
> >
> > if it's still feasible i suggest to replace REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM
> > with (SETF SYSTEM-MUTABLE-P) and stop exporting *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*.
> >
> I think it's too late to make changes for 3.1.5.
>
> Indeed, it's probably a bad idea to export *IMMUTABLE-SYSTEMS*. Maybe
> to late to fix in
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:
> no, i'm fine with the functinality of REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SYSTEM.
>
> what i wasn't fine with is an exported global holding a hashtable, and
> at that time i hadn't noticed RIS because i was expecting a different
> name. REGISTER-IMMUTABLE-SY
>>> maybe a simple defun SYSTEM-MUTABLE-P and a setf variant would be better?
>>>
>> Maybe. I'll let Robert decide if he wants a way to make a system
>> mutable no more.
>> Up until now, the usage scenario was that systems would transition one
>> way only from mutable to immutable,
>> as you prepar
On 7/10/15 Jul 10 -8:34 AM, Faré wrote:
>>> We did add better immutable-system support thanks to Dave Cooper,
>>
>> is this meant to be the final public API (an exported global variable
>> that holds a hashtable)?
>>
> The final API is
> (register-immutable-system "foo")
> and, I suppose,
> (sysdef
13.07.2015, 05:01, "Robert P. Goldman" :
> I'm afraid I've forgotten: would you please send out the results URL(a)?
Ah, sorry, you were not CC'ed.
Faré contacted me for help when he wanted to run cl-test-grid
tests himself, and we ended up testing that version (d70a8f8).
The reports for the curr
I'm afraid I've forgotten: would you please send out the results URL(a)?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 20:34, Anton Vodonosov wrote:
>
> 10.07.2015, 12:20, "Anton Vodonosov" :
>> 10.07.2015, 06:06, "Faré" :
>>> Dear lispers,
>>>
>>> we're ready to bless ASDF 3.1.4.25 as release 3
10.07.2015, 12:20, "Anton Vodonosov" :
> 10.07.2015, 06:06, "Faré" :
>> Dear lispers,
>>
>> we're ready to bless ASDF 3.1.4.25 as release 3.1.5, and now is a good
>> time to test it before it's too late. Anton, do you have time and/or
>> resource for a run of cl-test-grid?
>
> Yes, I've started
On 7/12/15 Jul 12 -1:17 PM, Faré wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> This sounds like a good point. Should we do this in the cover letter,
>> the changelog, manual, or some combination?
>>
>> My guess is that relatively few people actually upgrade their ASDFs in
>>
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> This sounds like a good point. Should we do this in the cover letter,
> the changelog, manual, or some combination?
>
> My guess is that relatively few people actually upgrade their ASDFs in
> place -- most just get ASDF from their implemen
On 7/10/15 Jul 10 -3:24 AM, Mark Evenson wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 05:05, Faré wrote:
>
> […]
>> Nothing should have changed in the semantics of ASDF itself since the
>> last run of cl-test-grid, so I don't expect any discrepancy. We did
>> add better immutable-system support thanks to Dav
Hi!
> SBCL on Windows isn't quite as good (and is not able to call out to CMD.EXE)
I encountered the problem recently, reported a bug and I seem to have
a workaround. Feel free to experiment with it.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1470500
>> We did add better immutable-system support thanks to Dave Cooper,
>
> is this meant to be the final public API (an exported global variable
> that holds a hashtable)?
>
The final API is
(register-immutable-system "foo")
and, I suppose,
(sysdef-immutable-system-search "foo")
though I forgot to ex
> we're ready to bless ASDF 3.1.4.25 as release 3.1.5, and now is a good
> time to test it before it's too late. Anton, do you have time and/or
> resource for a run of cl-test-grid?
FWIW, the hu.dwim universe builds without any issues.
> We did add better immutable-system support thanks to Dave C
10.07.2015, 06:06, "Faré" :
> Dear lispers,
>
> we're ready to bless ASDF 3.1.4.25 as release 3.1.5, and now is a good
> time to test it before it's too late. Anton, do you have time and/or
> resource for a run of cl-test-grid?
Yes, I've started the tests.
Best regards,
- Anton
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 05:05, Faré wrote:
[…]
> Nothing should have changed in the semantics of ASDF itself since the
> last run of cl-test-grid, so I don't expect any discrepancy. We did
> add better immutable-system support thanks to Dave Cooper, but that
> isn't cover by cl-test-grid, only by
27 matches
Mail list logo
