On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 6:56 AM, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> gitlab is back up now.
>
Thanks a lot, Erik! Congrats for drive-by bugfixing!
So the official URLs are:
Syntax control merge request:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/86
Current version of the document in the
gitlab is back up now.
Regards,
Erik.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Faré wrote:
> It's in doc/syntax-control.md in the syntax-control branch (MR !86 on
> gitlab).
> Unhappily, gitlab.common-lisp.net seems to be down right now:
> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/
It's in doc/syntax-control.md in the syntax-control branch (MR !86 on gitlab).
Unhappily, gitlab.common-lisp.net seems to be down right now:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf
If symptom persists, you may have to use my github backup in the meantime.
https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/s
Hi! Where the document is found?
2018-01-06 3:53 GMT+03:00, Robert Goldman :
> I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture the
> terminology.
>
> Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control.
> Results from Linux:
>
> buil
I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture the
terminology.
Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control.
Results from Linux:
build/results/allegro8_64-test.text
build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text
build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text
the only right thing here. There
are thousands of libraries and only dozens of characters which can be
used. So when using macro-characters, conflicts are absolutely
inevitable.
2017-10-13 23:31 GMT+03:00, Faré :
> Due to the readtable bug in ASDF 3.3.0 I updated the "syntax-control"
Due to the readtable bug in ASDF 3.3.0 I updated the "syntax-control"
branch that for the last three years was supposed to solve all
readtable bugs when building with ASDF.
I merged 3.3.0.1 into the branch, but the branch itself is not ready
for merging into master:
it does either too m
So unlike *PACKAGE*, the current (REPL) value of *READTABLE* leaks into
> every system that you load. It seems to me that this is a deficiency in
> CL: if CL had an IN-READTABLE equivalent to IN-PACKAGE, we would not be
> having this discussion.
>
Oh, the outer *package* also leaks
intainer of that library to stop leaking state unintentionally?"
>>
> It's not *that library*. It's all the innocent libraries
> that know nothing about readtables, and that will be compiled
> into calls to functions from systems they don't depend on,
> which w
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> I'm still groping after a clear statement of exactly what class of bugs
> it is that we are proposing to fix. The existing design document is
> still too vague, proposing to fix
>
> "uncontrolled, unintentional leaking of readtable side e
Faré wrote:
> Being able to support most code that change the readtable is worth it.
I think part of the problem here is that you are smarter than most of
the rest of us (at least me).
I'm still groping after a clear statement of exactly what class of bugs
it is that we are proposing to fix. The
;
> I pretty much *know* this is a readtable fail and I'm not having an easy
> time figuring out what went wrong.
>
> This is why I'm not enthusiastic about the syntax-control branch. It's
> fail-obscure, and we can't count on programmers inferring that their
> cod
what went wrong.
This is why I'm not enthusiastic about the syntax-control branch. It's
fail-obscure, and we can't count on programmers inferring that their
code has suddenly gone pear-shaped because of a modification to ASDF,
especially if it wasn't a modification to ASDF that
Dear Robert,
I saw you had another question in the syntax-control.txt document,
about what breaks if you try to work around a readtable conflict by
somehow forcing load order. I replied in the document.
You say that you had a system that was broken by my branch — did it
indeed have a readtable co
Dear Robert,
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> I haven't fully grokked the code changes in the syntax-control branch
> yet. However, I have read over the design notes in TODO, and pulled
> them out into a separate file, which I am attaching here. I ha
I haven't fully grokked the code changes in the syntax-control branch
yet. However, I have read over the design notes in TODO, and pulled
them out into a separate file, which I am attaching here. I have
annotated with a number of open questions, and added a bullet point to
document rati
To ease understanding of changes, I've merged master into
syntax-control, and pushed the result.
Please LMK if there are any issues with this. The resulting branch
passes all the regression tests (haven't tested updates).
cheers,
r
___
I reformatted the code and it might looks like this:
(labels (({ ( ] &rest [ )
(apply ( [ ] ) [))
([ ( ] )
(elt ( ] () ) ] ))
(] ( < )
(do-external-symbols ( ] `:cl )
(push `,] `,<))
(sort < `string< `:key `string))
> (labels(({(] &rest [)(apply([ ])[))([(])(elt(]())]))(](<)(
> do-external-symbols(]`:cl)(push`,]`,<))(sort <`string<`:key`string))(}(}
> {)({`688({`875({`398()"~{~A ~}~%"(]()))}(+`,{(*)})))({`381)({`816`2/9)))
> ({`561()#'}`(874,948 7,6009 4862,370 10,12249)`(3,2 4,4 2,1 1,0)))
WTF!!
:D
--
• a
I believe that with its massively scaled down functionality and
enhanced configurability,
my syntax-control is ready for merge before the 3.1 release:
* all it does in its default configuration is rebind *readtable* to
the value it had when loading asdf.
If you require asdf then use load-system
user uses at the REPL, which now can be
completely different.
The hygiene requirements can't be enforced without breaking backward
compatibility. But we already know that in practice, people already
make do, and now there is a documented guideline.To enable a read-only
readtable (on SBCL, CCL
Faré wrote:
> compile-file and load already bind *readtable*, which means that for
> asdf itself to bind *readtable* should be a no-op in the common case,
> and a BIG save for those who want to switch the readtable at the REPL.
I'm puzzled by this claim. As actually implemented, this seems to me
Dear CL hackers,
compile-file and load already bind *readtable*, which means that for
asdf itself to bind *readtable* should be a no-op in the common case,
and a BIG save for those who want to switch the readtable at the REPL.
In its current state, the syntax-control branch does just that, but
23 matches
Mail list logo
