Re: Syntax control code

[Faré]

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 6:56 AM, Erik Huelsmann  wrote:
> gitlab is back up now.
>
Thanks a lot, Erik! Congrats for drive-by bugfixing!

So the official URLs are:
Syntax control merge request:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/86
Current version of the document in the syntax-control branch:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md
Final location of the document, once the branch is merged:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/master/doc/syntax-control.md

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
Microphones, liberating singers from having to be loud to be heard, gave back
to each language a music that matches its own prosody.

Re: Syntax control code

[Erik Huelsmann]

gitlab is back up now.

Regards,

Erik.

On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Faré  wrote:

> It's in doc/syntax-control.md in the syntax-control branch (MR !86 on
> gitlab).
> Unhappily, gitlab.common-lisp.net seems to be down right now:
> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf
> If symptom persists, you may have to use my github backup in the meantime.
> https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection•
> http://fare.tunes.org
> From a programmer's point of view, the user is a peripheral that types
> when you issue a read request. — P. Williams
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:24 AM, 73budden .  wrote:
> > Hi! Where the document is found?
> >
> > 2018-01-06 3:53 GMT+03:00, Robert Goldman :
> >> I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture
> the
> >> terminology.
> >>
> >> Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control.
> >> Results from Linux:
> >>
> >> build/results/allegro8_64-test.text
> >> build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text
> >> build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text
> >> build/results/allegromodern8_64_s-test.text
> >> build/results/allegromodern_64-test.text
> >> build/results/allegromodern_64_s-test.text
> >>
> >> These failures seem to be due to NAMED-READTABLES not working properly
> >> on these platforms, rather than on anything ASDF itself does.
> >>
> >> Concern:  As I was reading over syntax-control.md, it was brought home
> >> to me that the ASDF shared syntax is initialized to the *initial syntax*
> >> on the host implementation, rather than the standard syntax of ANSI CL.
> >> My understanding is that this is done for backwards-compatibility with
> >> some QL systems that assume they have access to extended syntax from
> >> some implementation(s).  I'm concerned that this will create a
> >> maintenance headache going forward just so someone *else* can avoid
> >> making some minor clean-up.  Should we just suck it up and make the
> >> shared syntax start out with the initial syntax?  Why not break it now,
> >> and save ourselves trouble later?  Also, it seems like "initial syntax"
> >> is not well-defined, even on a single implementation, since ASDF might
> >> be loaded at arbitrary times, possibly after modifications to the
> >> "initial initial" readtable.  Finally, going forward, people will be
> >> yelling at *us* if implementations change their initial syntax.
> >>
> >> Unless there's a really important reason to keep this, I think we should
> >> kill it.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Bye,

Erik.

http://efficito.com -- Hosted accounting and ERP.
Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in.

Re: Syntax control code

[Faré]

It's in doc/syntax-control.md in the syntax-control branch (MR !86 on gitlab).
Unhappily, gitlab.common-lisp.net seems to be down right now:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf
If symptom persists, you may have to use my github backup in the meantime.
https://github.com/fare/asdf/blob/syntax-control/doc/syntax-control.md

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
>From a programmer's point of view, the user is a peripheral that types
when you issue a read request. — P. Williams


On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 5:24 AM, 73budden .  wrote:
> Hi! Where the document is found?
>
> 2018-01-06 3:53 GMT+03:00, Robert Goldman :
>> I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture the
>> terminology.
>>
>> Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control.
>> Results from Linux:
>>
>> build/results/allegro8_64-test.text
>> build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text
>> build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text
>> build/results/allegromodern8_64_s-test.text
>> build/results/allegromodern_64-test.text
>> build/results/allegromodern_64_s-test.text
>>
>> These failures seem to be due to NAMED-READTABLES not working properly
>> on these platforms, rather than on anything ASDF itself does.
>>
>> Concern:  As I was reading over syntax-control.md, it was brought home
>> to me that the ASDF shared syntax is initialized to the *initial syntax*
>> on the host implementation, rather than the standard syntax of ANSI CL.
>> My understanding is that this is done for backwards-compatibility with
>> some QL systems that assume they have access to extended syntax from
>> some implementation(s).  I'm concerned that this will create a
>> maintenance headache going forward just so someone *else* can avoid
>> making some minor clean-up.  Should we just suck it up and make the
>> shared syntax start out with the initial syntax?  Why not break it now,
>> and save ourselves trouble later?  Also, it seems like "initial syntax"
>> is not well-defined, even on a single implementation, since ASDF might
>> be loaded at arbitrary times, possibly after modifications to the
>> "initial initial" readtable.  Finally, going forward, people will be
>> yelling at *us* if implementations change their initial syntax.
>>
>> Unless there's a really important reason to keep this, I think we should
>> kill it.
>>
>>
>

Re: Syntax control code

[73budden .]

Hi! Where the document is found?

2018-01-06 3:53 GMT+03:00, Robert Goldman :
> I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture the
> terminology.
>
> Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control.
> Results from Linux:
>
> build/results/allegro8_64-test.text
> build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern8_64_s-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern_64-test.text
> build/results/allegromodern_64_s-test.text
>
> These failures seem to be due to NAMED-READTABLES not working properly
> on these platforms, rather than on anything ASDF itself does.
>
> Concern:  As I was reading over syntax-control.md, it was brought home
> to me that the ASDF shared syntax is initialized to the *initial syntax*
> on the host implementation, rather than the standard syntax of ANSI CL.
> My understanding is that this is done for backwards-compatibility with
> some QL systems that assume they have access to extended syntax from
> some implementation(s).  I'm concerned that this will create a
> maintenance headache going forward just so someone *else* can avoid
> making some minor clean-up.  Should we just suck it up and make the
> shared syntax start out with the initial syntax?  Why not break it now,
> and save ourselves trouble later?  Also, it seems like "initial syntax"
> is not well-defined, even on a single implementation, since ASDF might
> be loaded at arbitrary times, possibly after modifications to the
> "initial initial" readtable.  Finally, going forward, people will be
> yelling at *us* if implementations change their initial syntax.
>
> Unless there's a really important reason to keep this, I think we should
> kill it.
>
>

Syntax control code

[Robert Goldman]

I just pushed an edit of syntax-control.md in which I try to capture the 
terminology.


Status: several Allegro failures break for me on test-syntax-control.  
Results from Linux:


build/results/allegro8_64-test.text
build/results/allegro8_64_s-test.text
build/results/allegromodern8_64-test.text
build/results/allegromodern8_64_s-test.text
build/results/allegromodern_64-test.text
build/results/allegromodern_64_s-test.text

These failures seem to be due to NAMED-READTABLES not working properly 
on these platforms, rather than on anything ASDF itself does.


Concern:  As I was reading over syntax-control.md, it was brought home 
to me that the ASDF shared syntax is initialized to the *initial syntax* 
on the host implementation, rather than the standard syntax of ANSI CL.  
My understanding is that this is done for backwards-compatibility with 
some QL systems that assume they have access to extended syntax from 
some implementation(s).  I'm concerned that this will create a 
maintenance headache going forward just so someone *else* can avoid 
making some minor clean-up.  Should we just suck it up and make the 
shared syntax start out with the initial syntax?  Why not break it now, 
and save ourselves trouble later?  Also, it seems like "initial syntax" 
is not well-defined, even on a single implementation, since ASDF might 
be loaded at arbitrary times, possibly after modifications to the 
"initial initial" readtable.  Finally, going forward, people will be 
yelling at *us* if implementations change their initial syntax.


Unless there's a really important reason to keep this, I think we should 
kill it.