New candidate fix is available for review and testing as 3.1.7.5
Now we have the TYPE UIOP:FATAL-CONDITION, instead of
UIOP:*FATAL-CONDITIONS*.
I was wishy-washy and kept (FATAL-CONDITION-P c) as an alias for (TYPEP
C 'UIOP:FATAL-CONDITION).
I go back and forth on whether FATAL-CONDITION-P shoul
On 7/31/16 Jul 31 -9:06 PM, Faré wrote:
>> The closest I'd be willing to go is to remove UIOP:*FATAL-CONDITIONS*
>> > and replace it with a type definition for UIOP:FATAL-CONDITION. But
>> > even that makes me feel bad. I guess we can keep this for now, but I'll
>> > be a lot happier when it's si
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> On 7/31/16 Jul 31 -6:12 PM, Faré wrote:
>> The whole point of UIOP is to provide ASDF and other CL programs with
>> portability abstractions that actually work in the current CL
>> landscape. Not to pretend that that CL landscape magical
On 7/31/16 Jul 31 -6:12 PM, Faré wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Robert P. Goldman
> wrote:
>> On 7/28/16 Jul 28 -10:47 PM, Faré wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert P. Goldman
>>> wrote:
>>
>> H. Actually, SERIOUS-CONDITION, as I read its documentation, is
>> ex
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> On 7/28/16 Jul 28 -10:47 PM, Faré wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert P. Goldman
>> wrote:
>
> H. Actually, SERIOUS-CONDITION, as I read its documentation, is
> exactly the right abstraction -- it's just that CCL h
On 7/28/16 Jul 28 -10:47 PM, Faré wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert P. Goldman
> wrote:
>> Question: shouldn't I add this as
>>
>> (deftype FATAL-CONDITION ...)
>>
>> and try to use that everywhere, instead of writing duplicate code
>> everywhere? That would also solve the "lists
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> Question: shouldn't I add this as
>
> (deftype FATAL-CONDITION ...)
>
> and try to use that everywhere, instead of writing duplicate code
> everywhere? That would also solve the "lists in match-condition-p" problem.
>
Indeed, that's an e
On 7/28/16 Jul 28 -8:24 AM, Faré wrote:
> Dear Robert,
>
> instead of adding a *fatal-condition-exceptions*, I would much rather
> you use (and serious-condition #+clozure (not ccl:process-reset)) or
> something like that. You may have to add a case to match-condition-p
> to support lists as condi
