On 9/26/10 Sep 26 -12:28 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
What is broken about having people post questions to asdf-devel?
Didier's objection to asdf-devel is that he didn't want
On 9/22/10 Sep 22 -5:26 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
There is a rationale for the splitting of asdf.lisp.
...
* The bootstrapping code can be different for a shipped asdf (one that
comes with the implementation) and for the asdf that is loaded by users.
This can be activated by an
On 9/13/10 Sep 13 -8:05 AM, Serhiy Yakovyn wrote:
Hello all,
I have discovered defsystem names systems in a bit opposite way
defpackage does:
(defsystem :some-system …) and (defsystem “some-system” …) define the
same system, when (defsystem “SOME-SYSTEM” …) defines the other
On 9/12/10 Sep 12 -1:55 PM, Vsevolod Dyomkin wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
On 9/12/10 Sep 12 -11:48 AM, Vsevolod Dyomkin wrote:
Hi,
Some random comments
2. If the rational version
On 9/12/10 Sep 12 -2:57 PM, Faré wrote:
ASDF(76): (mapcar #'parse-integer
(split-string 2.103 :separator .))
(2 103)
And that is what's annoying, since actually (semantically) 103 is meant as
1.3, no?
Yup, and it's all my fault for failing to switch numbering during the
On 9/11/10 Sep 11 -12:41 PM, Faré wrote:
Dear all,
I hope that 2.008 will be my last ASDF release. I may still make
emergency bug fixes (if any is needed), or merge patches sent to me,
but I don't intend to actively develop ASDF anymore. I feel it has
reached the point where I wanted it to
On 8/31/10 Aug 31 -2:03 PM, Faré wrote:
On 31 August 2010 12:55, Nikodemus Siivola nikode...@random-state.net wrote:
On 19 August 2010 22:04, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
Exporting random internal utilities from ASDF is a terrible idea, IMO.
The utilities are not completely random. I use
On 8/31/10 Aug 31 -2:47 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
Do you realize that git is not a suitable distribution method for many
users? It would be more interesting to have a permanent web address for
the latest stable release, from which to download it -- a process that
can then be
Looking at the transcript, it seems something is going wrong with
ASDF-OUTPUT-LOCATIONS.
It looks like ASDF is trying to build a SYSTEM-WIDE lisp library into
YOUR PERSONAL cache directory. This suggests that ASDF-OUTPUT-LOCATIONS
is misconfigured. That said, I don't know enough about A-O-T or
On 8/6/10 Aug 6 -11:49 AM, Robert Brown wrote:
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Stelian Ionescu sione...@cddr.org
mailto:sione...@cddr.org wrote:
Try something like this:
(defmethod asdf:perform ((op asdf:compile-op) (c protobuf-source-file))
(let* ((output-defaults (pathname
On 8/5/10 Aug 5 -5:58 PM, Robert Brown wrote:
I'm using ASDF to build an open source implementation of Google's protocol
buffer data serialization library. The code is here:
http://github.com/brown/protobuf
I've defined a new component type that allows developers to include protobuf
On 7/13/10 Jul 13 -2:25 AM, Benjamin Benninghofen wrote:
Robert Goldman wrote:
I believe that your problem may come from introducing the intermediate
:modules. You may find that collecting the results of
(asdf::traverse (make-instance 'asdf:load-op) (find-system :foo))
Try rewriting
I believe that your problem may come from introducing the intermediate
:modules. You may find that collecting the results of
(asdf::traverse (make-instance 'asdf:load-op) (find-system :foo))
Try rewriting your defsystem more along these lines:
(ASDF:DEFSYSTEM :FOO :COMPONENTS
On 6/30/10 Jun 30 -12:52 PM, Louis A. Turk wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 14:10 -0500, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 6/28/10 Jun 28 -2:03 PM, Louis A. Turk wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 11:23 -0500, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 6/28/10 Jun 28 -10:39 AM, Louis A. Turk wrote:
asdf version 2.104
It looks
On 6/30/10 Jun 30 -2:11 PM, Faré wrote:
The contents of laturk-unique.asd:
(in-package :asdf)
(defsystem laturk-unique
:version 0.1.0
:name laturk-unique
:author Louis A. Turk
:description Converts utf-8 text file to list of sorted unique
words.
:components ((:file packages)
The only other thing I can think of to suggest is to inspect the result of
(asdf:find-system :laturk-unique)
with particular attention to the component-pathname slot (I don't have
the code in front of me, I'm afraid; this slot name may be wrong, but it
should be easy to figure out the right one
On 6/28/10 Jun 28 -5:22 PM, Vsevolod Dyomkin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Faré fah...@gmail.com
mailto:fah...@gmail.com wrote:
I propose instead that a completely different API be used, that
computes and/or
checks a source-registry from some specification and a
On 6/29/10 Jun 29 -3:13 PM, Vsevolod Dyomkin wrote:
Robert,
That's why I've started developing this topic of improving version
support in ASDF (and not elsewhere), because if versions need to stay
there, they preferably should be only there to adhere to the DRY
principle, and if they are
On 6/29/10 Jun 29 -4:47 PM, Faré wrote:
On 29 June 2010 16:31, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Here I think I disagree with Fare. I think a build tool needs to know
when dependencies are broken, and having it try to blindly load systems
that are named the same
On 6/28/10 Jun 28 -12:48 AM, Vsevolod Dyomkin wrote:
Hi!
[...snip...]
A final note about versioning: I needed to use pre-reading of ASD files
in order to know their versions without arising version conflicts. This
works, except for the fact, that READ-EVAL is turned off in the process,
so
On 6/28/10 Jun 28 -10:39 AM, Louis A. Turk wrote:
asdf version 2.104
It looks suspiciously like either (1) you are mixing different versions
of ASDF, including one from before Faré eliminated the internal
'ASDF::AROUND method qualifier, (2) someone in the definition of
ITERATE, or possibly
On 6/28/10 Jun 28 -2:03 PM, Louis A. Turk wrote:
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 11:23 -0500, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 6/28/10 Jun 28 -10:39 AM, Louis A. Turk wrote:
asdf version 2.104
It looks suspiciously like either (1) you are mixing different versions
of ASDF, including one from before Faré
On 6/16/10 Jun 16 -11:13 AM, Faré wrote:
Robert: any thoughts re: branching?
I am so far from being a git expert, that I will not venture any
suggestions.
A while ago I read the following article which proposes a branching
policy for use with git. It seemed, to my limited
On 6/12/10 Jun 12 -6:37 AM, Faré wrote:
Looking at Stelian's recent patches to iolib, I saw that he uses things like:
(asdf:defsystem :iolib.syscalls
...
:pathname #-asdf2 (merge-pathnames syscalls/ *load-truename*)
#+asdf2 syscalls/
...)
This shocked me, as I new (for
]
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make an
exception for the last one.
On 25 May 2010 11:24, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
What's the right syntax for specifying a relative pathname for a module
whose files should live in the parent
think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make an
exception for the last one.
On 25 May 2010 11:24, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
What's the right syntax for specifying a relative pathname for a module
whose files should live in the parent directory instead
Currently, the manual's discussion about logical pathnames states:
Moreover, the `asdf-output-translation' layer
will avoid trying to resolve and translate logical-pathnames, so you
can define yourself what translations you want to use with the logical
pathname facility.
IIUC, since a-o-t does
On 5/26/10 May 26 -9:35 AM, Faré wrote:
On 26 May 2010 09:18, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
On 5/25/10 May 25 -11:11 AM, Faré wrote:
I'm not sure what you want, but try for current directory, .. for up,
etc.
.. is actually not recognized by ASDF but passed to the
implementation
What's the right syntax for specifying a relative pathname for a module
whose files should live in the parent directory instead of in a
subdirectory?
E.g., if I have
(:module foo
:components ((:file bar) (:file baz))
:pathname
)
what goes in there if I do NOT want the files to live in
On 4/29/10 Apr 29 -2:30 PM, Faré wrote:
I'd like to freeze the main branch of ASDF tomorrow for anything but
bug fixes and documentation updates.
Is there anything any of you want to commit before the freeze? Or as
an exception to the freeze.
I'm thinking in particular of the stuff in
On 4/29/10 Apr 29 -3:59 PM, Faré wrote:
: rpg
: dherring
: rpg
Do we have the system dependencies right yet?
Probably not. However, I don't see that as a regression, nor has it
prevented ASDF from gaining dominance. Thus it can probably wait until
after the ASDF 2 release. No?
You
On 4/29/10 Apr 29 -6:18 PM, Faré wrote:
: rpg
: dherring
It's not a blocker to not have good system-dependencies, as Daniel says.
But given that, I think the blocker is that we should rip out the
system-dependencies misfeature. It's not right yet, so we shouldn't
ship it, and encourage
On 4/19/10 Apr 19 -1:01 PM, Faré wrote:
I pushed Juanjo's patch for :ASDF-DEPENDENCIES as 1.704, except that I
renamed the feature :SYSTEM-DEPENDENCIES. Maybe it should have been
:SYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON. Ahem. You tell me what you think.
As for optional dependencies, I think things like
On 4/18/10 Apr 18 -9:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
I know there are bug reports in launchpad, and that this has been
expelled from 2.0 as of not urgent fix, but seems the latest changes
have broken it beyond fix.
I was playing with the following system (yes, I know the syntax is
On 4/17/10 Apr 17 -4:08 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
It is a two-lines change that allows a defsystem form depend on a
package that provides additional functionality, such as new system
classes, new system options, new methods, etc.
:ASDF-DEPENDENCIES ({system-name}*)
Suggest you also
On 4/18/10 Apr 18 -10:18 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
So: what is the intended effect of :ASDF-DEPENDENCIES and
:ASDF-OPTIONAL-DEPENDENCIES? At what point in the processing
On 4/18/10 Apr 18 -10:48 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Faré fah...@gmail.com
mailto:fah...@gmail.com wrote:
PS: after 2.0 is out, I'd like to resign from ASDF maintainership, to
focus on XCVB (help welcome on that, too). Is anyone volunteering
I originally thought that ASDF might not notice if a source file was
lost, as long as a fasl was left around. In fact, it /does/ notice,
which is what I had hoped. I just added a test to verify this, just in
case.
Please try and run this when you get a chance, just to make sure it's
truly
One of my own systems got blown up by ASDF-OUTPUT-TRANSLATIONS recently,
and the case may be an interesting one:
I am working on a system that involves taking an ontology from the
Protege tool, and interpreting it as CL.
So we have a special component type which is pont (from Protege ontology).
On 4/14/10 Apr 14 -8:52 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 4/14/10 Apr 14 -8:41 PM, Faré wrote:
To prevent Lisp files from being redirected, you can add a rule such as
((:root #p**/*.lisp) t)
in your translations.
OR, you can make sure your output-file methods return T as a second
value
False alarm. A-B-L compatibility /is/ working here.
Now I need to figure out /why/ it is working for compatibility, but
fails when the compatibility is turned off (and the .lisp file gets
written in the wrong place).
Anyway, I clearly shouldn't go messing about with this until I'm sure I
know
On 4/14/10 Apr 14 -8:56 PM, Faré wrote:
On a large flat system (automatically generated by XCVB from QRes),
TRAVERSE takes a whole lot of time. More like O(n^2) or O(n^3) than
either O(n) or O(n log n).
I suspect suboptimal algorithms are used somewhere, either in
component lookup or in
Trying to test this now, on my linux box, but am having problems. I'd
like to use ACL, which has a debugger I'm more familiar with, but have
32-bit ACL on a 64-bit linux. Even installing 32-bit gnu fortran, I get
a failure, probably because the makefile is detecting that I have a
64-bit OS.
If
On 4/11/10 Apr 11 -10:06 AM, Robert Goldman wrote:
Trying to test this now, on my linux box, but am having problems. I'd
like to use ACL, which has a debugger I'm more familiar with, but have
32-bit ACL on a 64-bit linux. Even installing 32-bit gnu fortran, I get
a failure, probably because
If one was to start up a lisp with asdf and asdf-binary-locations
loaded, and then installed asdf2?
Is this expected to run at all well?
Would it be reasonable to trap this case and either refuse to run, or
somehow undo asdf-binary-locations?
I'd like to be able to do some more ASDF2 testing,
On 4/11/10 Apr 11 -10:28 AM, james anderson wrote:
good afternoon;
reading traverse is not my idea of a good time, but when i persevere,
i do not arrive at the same conclusion.
Here is the logic as I understand it. I will cite line numbers. I wish
I knew how to do this reliably --- I can
On 4/11/10 Apr 11 -11:42 AM, Faré wrote:
1- Would making unix-dso a subclass of component but not of module
somehow help solve the problem?
blushI didn't even carefully read the system definition --- I just dug
in to trying to make it load. You are right --- I don't see any reason
why this
On 4/9/10 Apr 9 -1:31 PM, Mario S. Mommer wrote:
Hi,
what follows is, as far as I am concerned, an observation, and not a bug
report. Maybe it is an interesting issue to keep in mind.
So I upgraded to the new asdf, and observed the following. When I load
matlisp with the .asd attached,
traverse returns a plan, which is a list (ordered sequence) of op - component
dotted pairs. Effectively, we can execute the plan by mapping PERFORM over it.
This is strictly from memory. Hth.
Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
Ahem. I admit this is a part of ASDF I am not familiar with.
What does
On 4/7/10 Apr 7 -5:28 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
I was just bitten by a duplicate-name condition. It was on ASDF1, but
the code still seems to be exactly the same in ASDF2.
Please add a proper error message to that condition.
I first thought there are two systems with the same name,
On 4/3/10 Apr 3 -10:16 AM, Faré wrote:
Oops, the website is out of date. We really ought to fix that.
I just added this FAQ to the manual (in doc/asdf.texinfo):
@subsection ``How can I wholly disable the compiler output cache?''
To permanently disable the compiler output cache
for all
Faré, will you please verify that I didn't muck up your
package-wrangling patch?
thanks --- sorry about the confusion.
best,
r
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
By and large I agree with Juanjo's statement of principles, but I would
like to discuss the reason /why/ ASDF is different from tools like Autoconf.
Lisp development --- at least for people like me --- is primarily an
interactive process, and this is why building and loading/executing are
On 3/31/10 Mar 31 -12:25 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Lisp development --- at least for people like me --- is primarily an
interactive process, and this is why building
On 3/29/10 Mar 29 -4:38 PM, Samium Gromoff wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:08:27 -0400, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no portable way to distinguish between the many filesystem
errors, anyway.
Is there a good reason to not let LOAD report whatever error it wants?
Hmm, LOAD is
On 3/29/10 Mar 29 -4:00 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
One of the common problems that ASDF users faced when introducing the
new binary location system is finding out where things reside.
Another problem we will eventually find is locating the resources
associated to an ASDF system which
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -5:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
Some considerations:
* In order to achieve a declarative syntax in ASDF, the system that we
built it with should have the least knowledge about ASDF. In other
words, it should work just the same if we bulid it with any other system.
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -9:29 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Question: should we raise a style warning if the user supplies a
logical pathname that does not comply with the ANSI
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:52 AM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-30, at 16:25 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -5:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
[...]
Question: are we going to create a logical pathname translation for
just the system sources? Or should we create also
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:58 AM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-30, at 16:42 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -9:29 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Question: should we
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -12:32 PM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-30, at 19:12 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:52 AM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-30, at 16:25 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -5:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
[...]
Question: are we
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -1:48 PM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-30, at 20:36 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
I think I know roughly what Juanjo means here. In particular:
1. I don't like to have my systems use the ASDF API internally. E.g.,
I will set up variables with pathnames, or use
On 3/29/10 Mar 29 -9:49 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Tobias C. Rittweiler t...@freebits.de
mailto:t...@freebits.de wrote:
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com
mailto:juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com writes:
On 3/29/10 Mar 29 -11:05 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
I.e., can you characterize this declaratively in terms of the values of
MODULE-COMPONENTS, and for some operation
On 3/25/10 Mar 25 -1:49 AM, Mark Evenson wrote:
On 3/25/10 7:34 AM, Faré wrote:
[…]
It would be perhaps cleaner to have the binary locations machinery of ASDF2
react to not being able to write to the Pathname derived from the location
of the .asd file in an extensible manner. This
On 3/25/10 Mar 25 -11:17 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Sorry, haven't had a chance to look closely at asdf2, but wanted to
point out that in certain contexts, like running applets, writing to
any file system is prohibited. For those cases, it would be nice if it
was super-easy to set a flag that
One thing I find myself doing over and over (and I don't think I'm alone
in this) in .asd files is to capture a pathname for the directory of the
system definition file. This is particularly important when one has
code that wants to load data files, in the presence of FASL file
relocation (since
| ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live
at the expense of everybody else. — F. Bastiat, Government.
On 24 March 2010 14:28, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
One thing I find myself doing over and over (and I
On 3/24/10 Mar 24 -1:56 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/24/10 Mar 24 -1:36 PM, Faré wrote:
You mean, things like
(asdf:system-relative-pathname :xcvb ) or
(asdf:system-relative-pathname :xcvb master.lisp) ?
Should be working well since 1.649.
It's even documented. The example with should
On 3/22/10 Mar 22 -10:04 PM, Faré wrote:
On 22 March 2010 22:35, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 March 2010 22:13, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Would it be possible to use the normal rewrite rules in the tests?
Sure but then we should either
1- always recompile asdf.lisp
I would like to move the manual into a newly-created subdirectory per
tcr's suggestion. I want to minimize merging issues, so please commit
any changes you might have; I will do the directory juggling this afternoon.
Thanks!
r
___
asdf-devel mailing
OK, I've looked at this, and I'm afraid I am not going to take this on
in its current form. If someone else would be so kind as to wrangle the
markdown and grok the scripts, that's fine.
If after some time, no one else expresses a willingness to do this, then
I will try to do some of it, but I
On 3/23/10 Mar 23 -8:35 AM, james anderson wrote:
good morning;
On 2010-03-18, at 21:41 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
Contributing to this problem is that the system and component forms are
not symmetrical. The intended syntax is[2], but the implementation is not:
? (defclass
On 3/23/10 Mar 23 -8:01 PM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-24, at 00:08 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/23/10 Mar 23 -8:35 AM, james anderson wrote:
good morning;
On 2010-03-18, at 21:41 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
The :class case, I'll grant you, /does/ make sense, but I'm
I understand about the change to the output, and the not recompiling, but I
think you're not using the standard implementation rewriting rules, because,
e.g., all the modern lisp binaries are going into mlisp, whereas ordinarily
8.1 and 8.2 fasls would go into different directories, right?
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -10:49 AM, Robert Goldman wrote:
Now when I run the tests on allegro I get a FILE-INCOMPATIBLE-FASL-ERROR
on file3.fasl. ASDF then tries to invoke the ASDF:RETRY restart. Then
it gets the FILE-INCOMPATIBLE-FASL-ERROR on file3.fasl. ASDF then tries
to invoke the ASDF:RETRY
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -11:55 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Tobias C. Rittweiler t...@freebits.de
mailto:t...@freebits.de wrote:
There, however, seems to be an inherent dependency-vs-pureness problem
with user extensions as illustrated by
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -9:16 PM, Daniel Herring wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -11:55 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
- Add a field :asdf-support to list dependencies for the system itself.
- Add a feature by which component types are registered with ASDF so
would it be possible to also add a version 3 milestone so that we
could explicitly push stuff /out/ of version 2?
Right now it seems like there's no way of telling the difference between
unmilestoned and milestoned out of version 2.
But my ignorance of launchpad is near complete, so it is
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off this time around, IMO.
Suggestion: if the group thinks this is a good idea, let's
1. Add a future plans section to the manual
2. Insert a write-up about this proposal in
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -4:31 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -5:11 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com
mailto:fah...@gmail.com wrote:
What about instead investing in XCVB?
As much as I would like to have something simplify my life, it is not my
choice to use one system
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -5:27 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
I'm reluctant to endorse this suggestion, because it means that we will
spawn YA information source to track. We'll have
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -1:44 PM, Faré wrote:
: fare
: janderson
But I think ASDF ought to make a best effort, so that you can at
the very
least upgrade ASDF when installed as part of Common-Lisp-Controller
and
similar management layers (that do use package ASDF).
as a step in that direction,
I think we've come to some conclusions about the /general/ problem of
modifying the ASDF operations and the hazards of using CLOS in an
exported API. But I wonder if we've answered the original issue, viz:
Juanjo --- do you have what you need to make asdf-ecl.lisp work again
(wrt traverse)? Is
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -4:04 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
This brings back one of the things I discussed long ago. TRAVERSE's
behavior has to be documented and its behavior has to be specified and
fixed. Either that or ASDF should stabilize a way to write extensions on
top of it. I can not be
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -3:58 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
Before, if an operation defined by me, such as LIB-OP, did not traverse
a system, then the only operation we got was that operation applied on
the system, as a generic object.
Now TRAVERSE not only imposes the LIB-OP operation on the
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -4:33 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com
mailto:juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
Before, if an operation defined by me, such as LIB-OP, did not
traverse a
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -9:00 AM, Faré wrote:
Juanjo: it is unfortunate that the recent fix to a bug in TRAVERSE led
to breakage of the ECL extension. We'll try our best to accommodate
your needs. Do you know how to fix the breakage on your side, or do
you need us to change something?
Robert: for
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -4:57 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
What we do need is clear and self explained in the asdf-ecl.lisp
extension and I discussed this here long long ago. If this has
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -5:36 PM, Faré wrote:
Dear friends,
let's please focus on the technical problem and drop the nagging. We
all want the same thing: an ASDF that works for everyone, including
ECL, and ECL is not to be considered a mere client, but an integral
part of ASDF. And we all suffer
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -5:54 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
For example, if I'm writing the ASDF
definition for my FLOYD-WARSHALL transitive closure library, I can't be
putting
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -6:03 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com
mailto:juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh, there is nothing with TRAVERSE's output _right now_.
Let me clarify this
I just tried to run the tests on ACL and got a new failure. Please pay
particular attention to the lines preceded with **, which indicate to me
that something's going wrong with the output translations, with alisp
somehow turning into case-insensitive-upperlisp.
I will try to figure out if I can
On 3/17/10 Mar 17 -9:15 PM, Faré wrote:
Fixed. I hope. Oops.
Super, thanks. And I picked off a couple of buglets in the tests, so
they are looking better than ever. Only one (explained) failure on ACL!
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
A language
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
I don't see much that's helpful in the ACL manual
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y8nfazw --- how user-homedir-pathname behaves
on windows
Beyond that, I'd suggest sending email to b...@franz.com to ask for advice.
For that matter, Gary King was kinda deputized to speak for Allegro in
this forum.
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
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
801 - 900 of 996 matches
Mail list logo
