Gary King wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
>>
>> I'm inclined to prefer that we rearrange that code block so that the
>> when is pushed upstream, and we simply don't push a NIL onto the
>> *central-registry*.
>>
>> Would that be an acceptable solution?
>
>
> I'd rather do it like that too but I don't think
Hi Robert,
>
> I'm inclined to prefer that we rearrange that code block so that the
> when is pushed upstream, and we simply don't push a NIL onto the
> *central-registry*.
>
> Would that be an acceptable solution?
I'd rather do it like that too but I don't think it'll work. The
trouble is the
Faré wrote:
> The default for ASDF's *central-registry* in SBCL contains a
> (let (...) (when ...))
> which can and *will* return NIL in some cases (i.e. when an executable
> SBCL image is run).
>
> On the other hand, sysdef-central-registry-search calls
> directory-pathname-p on each entry, whi
Hi Faré,
Sounds good. I'll fix it.
On Aug 20, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Faré wrote:
> The default for ASDF's *central-registry* in SBCL contains a
> (let (...) (when ...))
> which can and *will* return NIL in some cases (i.e. when an executable
> SBCL image is run).
>
> On the other hand, sysdef-cent
The default for ASDF's *central-registry* in SBCL contains a
(let (...) (when ...))
which can and *will* return NIL in some cases (i.e. when an executable
SBCL image is run).
On the other hand, sysdef-central-registry-search calls
directory-pathname-p on each entry, which assumes that
NIL is an
