Stelian Ionescu wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 12:31 +0200, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
I think it's bitten pretty much all of us that we at least once tried to
push a non-directory-designating filename to *CENTRAL-REGISTRY*.
It's a common pitfalls for newcomers.
Couldn't ASDF signal a
I see the following when I try to load an asdf system now:
Error loading #P/Users/rpg/clinit.cl:
While searching for system `asdf-context`: `(MERGE-PATHNAMES systems/
/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf-install-systems/)`
evaluated to `/Users/rpg/lisp/asdf-install-systems/systems/` which is
not a directory.
Richard M Kreuter wrote:
Gary King writes:
OK, I /have/ misdiagnosed this. The logic seems actually busted in
directory-pathname-p. The problem is that, at least on allegro, you
can get a valid directory pathname whose name component is neither
NIL, nor :unspecific, but (the empty
Partial fix for directory-pathname-p.
diff --git a/asdf.lisp b/asdf.lisp
index 6a8453b..851b5b5 100644
--- a/asdf.lisp
+++ b/asdf.lisp
@@ -433,7 +433,10 @@ which evaluates to a pathname. For example:
)
(defun directory-pathname-p (pathname)
- (and (member (pathname-name pathname) (list nil
I have found out how this problem has seeped into ASDF --- ASDF-INSTALL,
at least the version I have (I am checking now to see if there's an
improved version) --- seeds asdf:*central-registry* with pathnames with
:name = . This is done by the directorify function in installer.lisp.
Investigating
james anderson wrote:
On 2009-07-20, at 21:10 , Robert Goldman wrote:
james anderson wrote:
On 2009-05-18, at 14:55 , Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
2009/5/18 Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info:
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
I've read several times that it's a head ache to configure optional
james anderson wrote:
On 2009-07-21, at 00:58 , Robert Goldman wrote:
Gary King wrote:
I share Robert's queasiness and also think that we want ASDF to
support
these sorts of dependencies (simple, weak, contingent, etc... (?)).
I'm going to update the manual with James's table (thanks
Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
2009/8/5 Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info:
Part of the problem with test-op is that the desired behavior has not
been specified by the ASDF community. Because of the nature of ASDF, it
is impossible for
(asdf:test-system system)
to return a value indicating
Gary King wrote:
Does anyone know why this didn't make it into ASDF? Should we apply
this patch?
I'm guessing it was just inertia. I'll try to get it i before your talk
(which is when, by the way smile!?)
Oh, we needn't rush to that extent!
My talk is tomorrow evening, which is too soon
Robert Goldman wrote:
I was reading over the info again before my talk, and I realized that
there was no discussion of the test-op as one of the predefined
operations, although it is predefined. Patch attached.
In previous draft I forgot to mention that OPERATION-DONE-P always
returns
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
Now that this discussion is opened, I would like to add a small
question and a petition.
First the question. What is the level of integration of ASDF with
different implementations? Does ASDF support all lisp implementations
equally? Does SBCL (and perhaps
james anderson wrote:
On 2009-09-09, at 16:27 , Robert Goldman wrote:
james anderson wrote:
hello;
i recall, that we have started down this path before, but we never
got very far, so i would like to pick up the thread again:
what exactly fails (or is just inconsistent) in the respective
Scientist, SIFT, LLC
www.sift.info
.. Original Message ...
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:15:52 +0200 james anderson james.ander...@setf.de
wrote:
On 2009-09-09, at 17:54 , Robert Goldman wrote:
james anderson wrote:
[...]
2. Logical pathnames are defined in ANSI CL to use case-flattened
Gary King wrote:
Hi,
As others have pointed out, there is some current foment which will, I
hope, die down once I find some time to do some polishing (this
weekend?).
I think it makes sense to hook into provide/require (even though I
agree with Robert that I'd rather not use them
A couple of points I noticed while doing my backport to info:
1. We start by saying you can just use require, but then we say you
only need to load asdf.lisp. I think it would be better to say if
this require trick works, you can skip over the section about loading asdf.
2. We might want to
Gary King wrote:
Hi Robert,
I don't believe that this is a general solution, for two reasons:
I agree that it isn't a general solution especially since there is no
interface/API for clients to do anything with an ASDF operation! It
might, however, be a small step in the right direction.
Daniel Herring wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Robert Goldman wrote:
Gary King wrote:
Hi Robert,
I don't believe that this is a general solution, for two reasons:
I agree that it isn't a general solution especially since there is no
interface/API for clients to do anything with an ASDF operation
Attila Lendvai wrote:
That is why I have been suggesting that we provide a test operation that
binds a stream --- because most of the test frameworks I have worked
with provide a test report, rather than returning results.
fyi, stefil returns a CLOS object containing the test results (and
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman writes:
2. Returning a single operation isn't enough, is it? For example, if I
have system X, with sub-systems A, B, and C, I may be testing A, B, and
C, so my traversal would have to gather up the three subsidiary test-op
entities and either
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman writes:
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman writes:
2. Returning a single operation isn't enough, is it? For example, if I
have system X, with sub-systems A, B, and C, I may be testing A, B, and
C, so my traversal would have to gather up
Faré wrote:
Maybe ASDF is the wrong place to try to standardize testing infrastructure?
This is the conclusion I have reached, as well. I was hoping that some
very weak standard could be arrived at that would make the test-op more
generally useful to people installing systems, so that they
Samium Gromoff wrote:
From: Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
Would it be acceptable to set up trac for ASDF?
I just finished work on the manual for trac, and was going to take a
look at some of the features issues that Nick Levine discovered, and it
would make things much easier if some
Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
I submit that Gary is currently the only person with a vote that
counts: he's doing the actual work on ASDF at the moment. If using
bug-tracker X makes his life easier, it's good. If it doesn't, it's
bad.
That said, _a_ bug-tracker would be good.
Stellian has set
Attila Lendvai wrote:
Is it a contingent fact about this system that we have an absolute pathname
here, o have we somehow ended up with a function named
foo-relative-pathname that returns absolute pathnames?
as far as i read it, 'relative' here refers to 'system' in the
meaning: give me a
Faré wrote:
2009/10/28 Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info:
Faré wrote:
2009/10/28 Gary King gwk...@metabang.com:
Speaking of optimization settings, does anyone see any problem with
putting in ASDF something that deterministically (re)sets the
optimization setting before each and any perform
Gary King wrote:
as far as i read it, 'relative' here refers to 'system' in the
meaning: give me a pathname that is relative to this system.
Yes, this was the idea: Make me a (absolute) pathname for X relative
to system Y.
No, I don't /think/ that's right. When I call this function on
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman writes:
Fare wrote:
Do we need a :after method to restore the old settings? I'm not sure
how to do that actually, since I don't believe there's a portable way to
record them. Do you have thoughts about this?
(rpg replied to me in private
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
Furthermore, in order to answer your question, what I expect of the
test facility is that once every framework hooks in, one is able to
write
(defsystem :my-package
:components ((:file my-package))
:in-order-to ((test-op (rt-test-op :my-package-test
I'm finding that for some reason the :default-initargs to a new
component class (a subclass of cl-source-file) I've defined are not
getting applied.
I have a vague memory that there's some weirdness in the way asdf
creates components that means that this doesn't work, but I'd be obliged
if anyone
nunt...@strider2.example.org wrote:
asdf.texinfo still refers to Kent's old site at
http://world.std.com/~pitman/Papers/Large-Systems.html
It should be updated to
http://nhplace.com/kent/Papers/Large-Systems.html
- Daniel
___
asdf-devel
Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
2009/11/21 Tobias C. Rittweiler t...@freebits.de:
(defun coerce-name (name)
(typecase name
(component (component-name name))
(symbol (string-downcase (symbol-name name)))
(string name)
(t (sysdef-error ~@invalid component designator ~A~@: name
I
Jianshi Huang wrote:
Hi,
Currently in parse-component-form function, duplication of names are
checked but modules and files are put to the same category. Is there
any particular reason for this restriction?
They are in the same namespace.
e.g. I can't have both
foo.lisp
foo/
in
I volunteer for the commit bit, as well, as back-up to Faré. I'm
primarily focused on documentation right now, but have some pending
patches (notably clean-op) on the back-burner.
I suggest we also solicit a git-wizard to own the commit bit, as well,
in case we need to do some funky rebasing or
Faré wrote:
...
* try to keep asdf.lisp itself small and recommend that unnecesary
features should be put in contribs instead.
Do we have a protocol for loading ASDF that ensures that by virtue of
loading it authorized contribs (i.e., contribs distributed with ASDF)
will also be loadable.
One
Can you explain how you got hold of McCLIM and CL-Utilities? I'd be
interested in seeing if I can replicate this, but I haven't used McCLIM
in years, and back in those dark days we used only CVS (and we walked to
school barefoot, uphill /both ways/). Maybe provide git urls for both
mcclim and
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Thomas Bartscher writes:
Why are warnings of asdf put into *standard-output*?
Wouldn't it be easier to put those into something like *asdf-warnigs*? This
way
users of asdf could redirect those wherever they want.
That's a pet peeve of RPG, in fact. I suggest
Daniel Herring wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Robert Goldman wrote:
Can you explain how you got hold of McCLIM and CL-Utilities? I'd be
interested in seeing if I can replicate this, but I haven't used McCLIM
in years, and back in those dark days we used only CVS (and we walked to
school
dherr...@tentpost.com wrote:
Robert Goldman wrote:
Daniel Herring wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Robert Goldman wrote:
There would be several benefits if FIND-SYSTEM were to simply PROBE-FILE
for a system definition in each of the configured paths (e.g.
path1/system.asd, path2/system.asd
Faré wrote:
2009/12/1 Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info:
I just checked, and I see that my documentation patches have not been
pushed. Any objection to pushing them before the release?
If you are willing to do that, I'd appreciate it. I prefer not to do
anything irrevocable to the git
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman writes:
Similarly, I would prefer to have ASDF not fall into the SLIME trap.
SLIME configuration seems to involve mastering an ever-changing number
of contribs to get the features you really want
Slime is not a good example of a contrib
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Tobias C. Rittweiler writes:
I can recommend to put the following into your .emacs
(add-hook 'lisp-mode-hook
#'(lambda ()
(setq whitespace-style 'color)
(setq whitespace-chars '(trailing indentation))
I would like to suggest an addition from my experience of working with
colleagues at other companies. I'd suggest that we have a way to
specify files relative to something akin to *load-truename*.
Here's the use case: you work on a large project with an enormous
source code repository,
In trying to dig at one of TCR's bugs, I was archaeologizing asdf.lisp,
to figure out the contents of the *defined-systems* table. Put what I
came up with into a docstring.
cheers,
r
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
On 1/11/10 Jan 11 -9:43 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 23:38 -0500, dherr...@tentpost.com wrote:
The attached script should prevent tabs in *.asd, *.lisp, or *.script
files from being committed to a git repository. Existing tabs will not be
affected, unless they appear in
On 1/14/10 Jan 14 -11:29 AM, dherr...@tentpost.com wrote:
Robert Goldman wrote:
Is there some reason that this cannot be pushed into the repository
itself (i.e., used like a blur/clean thing)? See the bottom of this
page: http://progit.org/book/ch7-2.html
I.e., we just automagically
On 1/23/10 Jan 23 -5:38 PM, Robert Brown wrote:
LOAD-OP definitely compiles the Lisp source and then loads the resulting
fasl file. You use LOAD-SOURCE-OP when you only want to load the Lisp
source code without compiling it.
For the record, LOAD-OP compiles the lisp source /if it determines
On 1/24/10 Jan 24 -12:45 PM, Daniel Herring wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Robert Goldman wrote:
For what it's worth, I'd prefer that the markdown documentation die a
natural death in favor of the texinfo documentation.
I'm just trying to fix a common markdown error in all the packages I use
On 1/25/10 Jan 25 -4:46 PM, Sam Steingold wrote:
Daniel Herring wrote:
Thanks for the ideas. Poking around a bit further, it appears that in the
following snippet from output-files-using-mappings
(*centralize-lisp-binaries* is false), (pathname-directory path) is nil.
On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -9:34 AM, Samium Gromoff wrote:
From: Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
How are we supposed to be reasoning about the multiple git repositories
out there?
I have been pulling from the master/public one and then working locally.
Fare works on his personal working copy
On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -12:50 AM, Faré wrote:
I've just released ASDF 1.501 in the official repository, now with all
the source registry configuration that I previously discussed. It's
currently documented in its own file README.source-registry, rather
than in the general manual asdf.texinfo, as it
ACL tests fail, but with different error:
-#---
Using alisp -q -batch
Ran 18 tests:
5 passing and 13 failing
failing test(s): test-force.script test-module-pathnames.script
test-retry-loading-component-1.script test-static-and-serial.script
to synchronize with the user group, too!
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Death is only a milestone - albeit one that is dropped on you
from a very great height
— Terry Pratchett.
2010/1/27 Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info:
On 1
On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -3:36 PM, Samium Gromoff wrote:
From: Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
On 1/27/10 Jan 27 -9:34 AM, Samium Gromoff wrote:
From: Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
How are we supposed to be reasoning about the multiple git repositories
out there?
I have been pulling from
On 2/3/10 Feb 3 -11:53 AM, Faré wrote:
On 3 February 2010 11:32, Scott Bell sbl...@me.com wrote:
(:group x
:depends-on (packages)
If you're not in a subdirectory #px/, here add a
:pathname #p
:components
((:file a)
(:file b :depends-on (a))
On 2/4/10 Feb 4 -2:29 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com
mailto:fah...@gmail.com wrote:
ASDF didn't use to support ECL for testing at all. I just added this
support and found about the warnings, so it counts as my having warned
Wrt https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/502946,
module is not recompiled if _intra_-system dependency changes, I have
spent quite some time groveling over the source code to TRAVERSE, and I
believe that this is going to be quite difficult to fix. There are a
number of assumptions baked into
OK, I have committed a first shot at fixing this.
However, there is no easy way to have a module update its components
upon dependency change but not have a system update its components upon
dependency change, because a system is a subclass of module.
So my path may not be desirable, or at any
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
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
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
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
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
On 2/10/10 Feb 10 -10:38 PM, Faré wrote:
On 10 February 2010 18:27, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info 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
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -1:10 PM, Faré wrote:
On 19 February 2010 10:50, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Would anyone object to augmenting the docstring for
COMPONENT-RELATIVE-PATHNAME?
Currently it's:
Extracts the relative pathname applicable for a particular component.
How about
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -2:19 PM, Faré wrote:
2. SPLIT-PATH-STRING --- this is the one I think might need a ticket.
I confess I'm bamboozled by this one. It's called on (component-name
component), not on a pathname. Can you explain why the COMPONENT-NAME
would end up being a string that looks
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -2:19 PM, Faré wrote:
2. SPLIT-PATH-STRING --- this is the one I think might need a ticket.
I confess I'm bamboozled by this one. It's called on (component-name
component), not on a pathname. Can you explain why the COMPONENT-NAME
would end up being a string that looks
On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -6:35 PM, james anderson wrote:
a question:
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -2:19 PM, Faré wrote:
2. SPLIT-PATH-STRING --- this is the one I think might need a
ticket.
I confess I'm bamboozled by this one. It's called on (component-
name
component), not on a pathname. Can you
On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -11:16 PM, Faré wrote:
1. SPLIT-PATH-STRING is not an ideal name. SPLIT-PATH-STRING is /not/
used on paths, it is used on /names/ (in the ASDF sense of these terms).
An unwary reader of this code might try to apply it to a pathname (as I
originally thought), where it could
On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -10:02 AM, Faré wrote:
I am inclined to agree. I'd be happier if we could just say something like
(:file foo :relative-directory bar)
instead of
(:file bar/foo)
Why? You're just moving the complexity around,
without simplifying the overall design.
Moreover, the astute
On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -11:23 AM, Faré wrote:
Should we base our search path on the XDG Base Directory Specification?
http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html
To the point of actually using getenv to get these search paths?
I say we should.
Only to the extent that
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
On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -5:54 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Although the way to extend operations by additional initargs is somewhat
cumbersome, it's possible. Unfortunately, the sugar forms LOAD-SYSTEM,
COMPILE-SYSTEM, and TEST-SYSTEM do not take additional initargs.
I see that the docstrings
On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -9:00 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman writes:
On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -5:54 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Although the way to extend operations by additional initargs is somewhat
cumbersome, it's possible. Unfortunately, the sugar forms LOAD-SYSTEM,
COMPILE
On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -9:22 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
writes:
Actually, allow-other-keys would not be necessary if these weren't
normal functions but generic functions. Then methods can add valid
keywords. And there's a programmatic protocol to get
On 2/26/10 Feb 26 -10:52 AM, james anderson wrote:
hmmm...
On 2010-02-26, at 17:42 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 2/26/10 Feb 26 -10:17 AM, james anderson wrote:
good evening;
as an aside, in light of these changes.
? is there some reason that they are not coded to expand at compile
time
On 2/27/10 Feb 27 -8:16 AM, David McClain wrote:
Hello Robert,
I took a look at your test shell script (run-tests.sh) and made the
adjustment for running my saved image named lwm64.
After some tests I found that the Lisp image has its working directory
set to the same directory from which
On 3/5/10 Mar 5 -12:06 PM, james anderson wrote:
good evening;
on the occasion of pushing de.setf.graphics down the wire, when i
built it for ccl/sbcl i did an obligatory pull on asdf and observe
that something changed in the treatment of modules' component
relative pathnames. with
the component location computations
follow, they need somehow to take into account the variations in
pathname construction which ccl/sbcl evidence.
On 2010-03-05, at 20:14 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/5/10 Mar 5 -12:06 PM, james anderson wrote:
good evening;
on the occasion of pushing
On 3/9/10 Mar 9 -5:49 PM, Faré wrote:
Yes, it hasn't been documented so far. My bad. At least it now has a
well-defined meaning, as opposed to the previous mess.
a- when the source-file-type of a component is NIL, then the file type
is read from the last /-separated component of the string as
On 3/9/10 Mar 9 -5:49 PM, Faré wrote:
Dear James,
i have reformulated the test cases and run them through several
implementations.[0]
Thanks a lot!
1. i had thought (eg. [1]) that abcl and asdf were compatible. is
there some special version involved? the cl.net release failed to
On 3/9/10 Mar 9 -9:46 PM, Faré wrote:
b- when the source-file-type of a component is a string, then it will
be the type, and the last /-separated component of the string provides
the name.
This case worries me. It seems to require that every system definer
have a strongish sense of the
On 3/10/10 Mar 10 -3:40 AM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-10, at 00:49 , Faré wrote:
Dear James,
These are not currently portably valid:
* module ./
= remove these entries.
elsewhere it is described that . should work.
Question of clarification: is elsewhere somewhere in the
Ticketed as https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/536653 so we don't lose
track of this issue.
Cheers,
r
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
On 1/22/10 Jan 22 -6:50 AM, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
Hi all,
While trying to build a new Debian package I get the following errors:
OK, this is peculiar. When /I/ build asdf.texinfo, I see no errors:
[rpgoldman-2:~/lisp/asdf] rpg% makeinfo --verbose asdf.texinfo
makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.13
On 1/20/10 Jan 20 -1:59 PM, Nick Levine wrote:
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Far=E9?= fah...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:30:48 -0500
Cc: Nick Levine n...@ravenbrook.com, asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
If you actually send the backtrace on the list, or attach it to an
ASDF bug on
If this gets loaded into the asdf git repo, I'll test on ACL linux and Mac.
Might manage windows, too.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
The section 8/9 merge was easy. The section 7 (where does asdf write
its files?) one is going to be more difficult.
It turns out that this stuff is discussed in THREE locations:
1. The configuring ASDF chapter;
2. Section 7
3. README.asdf-output-translations.
Getting those three merged
Going over the manual to tidy it up, I was quite surprised to read this:
The default location for a user to install Common Lisp software is
under `~/.local/share/common-lisp/source/'.
This seems /very/ odd. Why would I want to install software in a
location 'ls' is going to hide from me?
On 3/11/10 Mar 11 -11:55 PM, Faré wrote:
On 12 March 2010 00:05, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
What other former ABL behaviour do you want me to give examples for?
A behavior that, like ABL, creates a subdirectory for each different
lisp implementation.
Would
I'd like to try to diagnose a communication error that has gone on here.
I think we're seeing some problems with asdf-output-locations primarily
because of unclear communications. It seems to me that Faré may feel a
ill-used because the asdf-output-locations have been out there for a
long
1. The manual in several places uses version 1.6 as synonymous with
1.600. But if we are to eat our own dogfood and comply with our own
version-satisfies function,
1.6 ~= (1 6) while
1.600 ~= (1 600)
and 600 6
I have fixed the references I found.
2. In a couple of places the manual suggests
On 3/12/10 Mar 12 -10:43 AM, Faré wrote:
(asdf:initialize-output-translations
`(:asdf-output-translations
(:root (,(truename *default-pathname-defaults*) :implementation-type
What happens to this as the value of *default-pathname-defaults* changes
over time?
Well, Lisp is
On 3/12/10 Mar 12 -10:55 AM, Faré wrote:
On 12 March 2010 10:47, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
1. The manual in several places uses version 1.6 as synonymous with
1.600. But if we are to eat our own dogfood and comply with our own
version-satisfies function,
1.6 ~= (1 6) while
whether or not it would
break previous :version dependencies.
Anyone know how backward compatible this would be?
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
I'll start exercising as soon as I'm into shape.
On 13 March 2010 12:38, Robert Goldman rpgold
I had to do this quite quickly, so the import was a bit rough and ready.
BTW, I think the two configuration chapters should be pushed UP in the
manual, and the object model should be pushed DOWN below them, since the
former is for advanced users, but the latter is for in-depth programmers.
The
ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Majority, n.:
That quality that distinguishes a crime from a law.
On 13 March 2010 16:55, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -11:35 AM, Robert Goldman wrote:
The member of *features* that indicates
On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -7:36 PM, Faré wrote:
On 13 March 2010 16:56, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
On 3/13/10 Mar 13 -1:12 PM, Faré wrote:
We could adopt the same algorithm as dpkg or rpm uses for comparing version.
I once implemented it in shell script. Could do it in Lisp...
I
On 3/15/10 Mar 15 -11:11 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com
mailto:fah...@gmail.com wrote:
(defmethod output-files :around ((op operation) (c component))
Translate output files, unless asked not to
(multiple-value-bind
On 3/15/10 Mar 15 -3:48 PM, Faré wrote:
On 15 March 2010 15:37, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
On 3/15/10 Mar 15 -3:20 PM, Faré wrote:
Meh, right at the moment I was considering getting rid of asdf:around...
Right, but the programmer is likely to want to be able to have his/her
Thanks for the clear discussion. Maybe best to just return NIL for type
always then.
This has the potential added advantage that if it causes bugs, the bugs
will /also/ appear on SBCL, which seems like the most tested configuration!
Best,
r
On 3/15/10 Mar 15 -10:32 PM, Faré wrote:
Should we
1 - 100 of 996 matches
Mail list logo
