On 10 February 2010 18:27, Robert Goldman wrote:
> OK, I have just pushed an alternative solution to the module dependency
> bug, this one (I believe) only triggered by INTRA-system dependencies.
> This one is also on the module-depends branch.
>
A test! This requires a test case in the test suite
[I don't expect the following to appear in ASDF. :)]
Many build systems consider dependencies to be a solved problem.
Unfortunately, I don't know of any suitable for CL.
There are two proven approaches to detecting changes
- timestamps
- file hashes
The beauty of timestamps is that, on most fi
good morning;
as is evident from the message attached below, for the past several
days i have thought about things related to bug-502946, and asdf in
general.
my state-of-mind as of last week was, for the reasons alluded to
below, that it is not productive to try to reason about system
co
OK, I have just pushed an alternative solution to the module dependency
bug, this one (I believe) only triggered by INTRA-system dependencies.
This one is also on the module-depends branch.
This was achieved, as I said, at the cost of some hair, but I believe it
does the right thing to the extent
I believe by adding a little bit more hair (a test that a component IS a
module and IS NOT a system) to the TRAVERSE structure, I can salvage
INTRA-system dependencies involving modules without trying to fix
INTER-system dependencies, which seems like too big a bite to chew off.
What would people
Earlier I claimed that the new ASDF TRAVERSE computed a conservative
approximation to what needed to be recompiled. In particular, if we have
(defsystem X
:depends-on (Y)
)
With the new patch, if we do load-op on X, and Y has changed, X will be
recompiled.
In Classic ASDF, this would no
On 2/10/10 Feb 10 -2:05 PM, james anderson wrote:
> good evening;
>
> my usual question: is this necessary in this form?
> i pose the question from the perspective that a change from a context
> free interpreter to a context-sensitive one is rather more drastic
> than just getting dynamic bind
good evening;
my usual question: is this necessary in this form?
i pose the question from the perspective that a change from a context
free interpreter to a context-sensitive one is rather more drastic
than just getting dynamic bindings right. two simple questions
occurred immediately.
the
Not a fast-forward push.
But should be well worth it!
Best,
r
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
I have a series of patches I am about to push to the module-depends branch.
Because I have had to rebase this onto master as new master changes have
come in, this will not be a fast-forward update when you pull it into
your local repo.
So this is a head's up. I will push the update sometime afte
10 matches
Mail list logo
