Dear Dave,
I created a branch immutable-systems in which I imported your code. I
cleaned it up your code, added a test, found bugs, fixed them.
Please try with the code in the branch.
It might be a bit late for your patch to make it to 3.1.5 (although
it's pretty independent from other code, so
Has there been any more progress on this front, since 11 August? That
was the last email I saw on the subject.
Best,
r
___
Asdf-devel mailing list
Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Robert P. Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Has there been any more progress on this front, since 11 August? That
was the last email I saw on the subject.
Dave and I had a brief conversation about it at ILC 2014. My advice
was to modify test-bundle.script and
Now that I think of it, I see a problem with your solution:
there can be situations where you register your system as immutable
and preloaded,
but since it's not registered as defined yet, find-system will still
look for it on disk.
I believe you need to either have you register-immutable-system
Thanks to both of you for your work on this patch.
I'm going to hold off on applying any patches, though, until there's a
test case.
Dave, I understand that it might be hard to wrap your head around the
test script code, so let's start by brainstorming what the test should
do, rather than
Ok here is an updated patch which does a register-system as well as
register-preloaded-system as part of register-immutable-system. It tries to
preserve version information according to what Faré recommended.
It also patches clear-system and clear-defined-system so as to prevent
clearing any
Getting there!
More nits:
* Up until now, clear-defined-system had no declared return value; I
propose you instead
return T if successful, NIL if unsuccessful, and just use an unless
rather than if.
* It's unclear to me what clear-system does or should do that differs
from clear-defined-system.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Robert P. Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
wrote:
Thanks to both of you for your work on this patch.
I'm going to hold off on applying any patches, though, until there's a
test case.
Dave, I
* It's unclear to me what clear-system does or should do that differs
from clear-defined-system.
I see that clear-system is documented in asdf.texinfo, but
clear-defined-system isn't;
furthermore, clear-defined-system doesn't appear anywhere in
quicklisp, as I can tell
grepping
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Dave Cooper david.coo...@genworks.com wrote:
What about clear-defined-systems (plural)?
This is exported functionality and it calls clear-defined-system.
Should it be changed to clear-systems and made to call clear-system, or kept
the same and made to call
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
Getting there!
More nits:
Please see attached patch, still against 3.1.3.2 of master.
A year ago, I would have fixed it all myself — today I'm just telling
you how to do it, and hoping that it helps create new ASDF
Almost there.
You did rename the function in a call to register-hook-function. Oops.
Can you run tests on at least one implementation before you submit?
Also, for historical reasons, the registered-system thing is a cons
cell, not a list.
cdr is more appropriate than rest, here.
—♯ƒ •
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but doesn't it work to set *immutable-systems* AFTER you load
everything?
No, it doesn't, because we never actually load anything via ASDF.
Everything was preloaded into the built image, using
monolithic-compile-bundles, sans
Here it is untabified.
I'll have to study the test-program.script a bit before attempting a test
case.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Dave,
your patch looks great except that it introduces tabs.
Please no tabs in ASDF. At least SBCL hates them.
Also,
Faré wrote:
Using asdf 3.1, you can use *immutable-systems* for that (see its
docstring).
Ok... After initializing Quicklisp and ASDF, I do:
(setq asdf:*immutable-systems* (uiop:list-to-hash-set gendl ... ))
as well as
(asdf/find-system:register-preloaded-system gendl)
...
with all
Here is a hack which seems to work for the moment but clearly is not the
Right Way, because it's doing surgery on asdf::*defined-systems*.
[assume `known-preloaded-systems' is a list of strings naming the known
preloaded systems]:
(dolist (system known-preloaded-systems)
(setf (gethash
Sorry, but doesn't it work to set *immutable-systems* AFTER you load everything?
I admit there not yet a test for this functionality in the asdf test suite;
it may be that the functionality is buggy and/or its API suboptimal,
and you're welcome to suggest patches and/or suggestions.
—♯ƒ •
Hi, I know this has been discussed, but what is currently the best practice
for registering a preloaded system after loading Quicklisp? That is, I
have a pre-built image with some Quicklisp/ASDF systems in it, which were
loaded through so-called monolithic-fasls (now known as compile-bundles).
So
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Dave Cooper david.coo...@genworks.com wrote:
Hi, I know this has been discussed, but what is currently the best practice
for registering a preloaded system after loading Quicklisp? That is, I have
a pre-built image with some Quicklisp/ASDF systems in it, which
19 matches
Mail list logo
