Re: Issues with package location information on SBCL

2018-04-04 Thread Eric Timmons
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Eric Timmons  wrote:
> I've also opened the following bug on SBCL to let them know about it:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1750466.

This bug has been fixed upstream and should probably appear in SBCL 1.4.7.

Since they got that fixed before ASDF 3.3.2 got out, is it worth
reverting commit 21e3a85? That would keep the return of
`parse-define-package-form` unchanged and the warnings would only show
up in SBCL 1.4.1-1.4.6 inclusive.

-Eric



Re: Issues with package location information on SBCL

2018-02-21 Thread Faré
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Robert Goldman  wrote:
> This does seem to illustrate an issue with the current "export everything
> that's in UIOP" strategy.
>
> Should we consider changing this policy?
>
1- UIOP reexports everything that individual subpackages of UIOP
export. I believe that's a simple and good policy. If a helper must
remain private, don't export it in the subpackage.
2- UIOP/PACKAGE is special, in that it is defined by defpackage (for
bootstrap reasons), and that therefore to portably ensure
upgradability, the list of symbols it exports MAY NEVER CHANGE, EVER.
No adds, no deletes, no renames. No change. If you need any change,
define and export a different package. Or use defpackage to define an
empty package or constant package, then define-package to import-from
and reexport from it.

> Or, if we have "internal" functions that we don't want to be visible through
> UIOP/DRIVER, should we simply not export them from the sub-packages and use
> :import-from to move them among the sub-packages?
>
Yes, that's the idea so far.

Also, we've moved symbols within UIOP in the past, and the
UIOP/subpackage names aren't stable. If you're using a utility in
UIOP, use UIOP: as a symbol prefix, don't use the symbol from its
current subpackage.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
Statism is the secular version of salvation through faith: it doesn't
matter what bureaucrats do, only that they do it with good intentions.



Re: Issues with package location information on SBCL

2018-02-20 Thread Robert Goldman
This does seem to illustrate an issue with the current "export 
everything that's in UIOP" strategy.


Should we consider changing this policy?

Or, if we have "internal" functions that we don't want to be visible 
through `UIOP/DRIVER`, should we simply not export them from the 
sub-packages and use `:import-from` to move them among the sub-packages?


Best,
r


On 19 Feb 2018, at 18:22, Faré wrote:

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Eric Timmons  
wrote:
Glad to help! I've also opened the following bug on SBCL to let them 
know

about it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1750466.


Thanks!

Also, I checked that nothing else in ASDF uses 
`parse-define-package-form`,
but I somehow missed until just now that it's actually exported from 
uiop
=/. Is there any concern about another library using it? If so, I can 
try to
fix it in such a way that the output of `parse-define-package-form` 
is

unchanged.

I wouldn't worry about that: grepping through quicklisp systems 
reveals no user.


—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• 
http://fare.tunes.org
It costs the nation millions to keep Gandhi living in poverty — 
Sarojini Naidu


Re: Issues with package location information on SBCL

2018-02-19 Thread Faré
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Eric Timmons  wrote:
> Glad to help! I've also opened the following bug on SBCL to let them know
> about it: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1750466.
>
Thanks!

> Also, I checked that nothing else in ASDF uses `parse-define-package-form`,
> but I somehow missed until just now that it's actually exported from uiop
> =/. Is there any concern about another library using it? If so, I can try to
> fix it in such a way that the output of `parse-define-package-form` is
> unchanged.
>
I wouldn't worry about that: grepping through quicklisp systems reveals no user.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
It costs the nation millions to keep Gandhi living in poverty — Sarojini Naidu



Re: Issues with package location information on SBCL

2018-02-17 Thread Faré
Thanks a lot for fixing this issue! I opened a MR based on it:
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/92

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection• http://fare.tunes.org
To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not
justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore,
that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified.
It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise
it confuses utilitarians.
—- N. Stephan Kinsella


On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:30 AM, Eric Timmons  wrote:
> I've started testing ASDF 3.3.1.3 with my group's code on SBCL 1.4.4
> and noticed some issues with uiop:define-package (due to commit
> 8281e011).
>
> First, when compiling ASDF I get 456 compilation notes
> (https://pastebin.com/NnRUKGWe). I get the same notes when using
> uiop:define-package in our code as well. I honestly think this is an
> issue of SBCL being over aggressive. It's also odd because if the
> recording of the source location is removed, then the notes aren't
> produced. It appears this started happening in SBCL 1.4.1 (potentially
> due to commit af5e2ed1e).
>
> The volume of notes (especially when using package-inferred-system)
> can drown out real issues. I'll likely report this as an issue to SBCL
> since the keywords *should* be constant and the source transform for
> apply doesn't seem to be preserving that. However, it could also be
> fixed in ASDF by changing the apply to a funcall in the define-package
> expansion (patch 2).
>
> Second, the comma on (sb-c:source-location) seems to cause the source
> location for the package to always point to the body of the
> define-package macro. Patch 1 changes this so that form is evaluated
> after the macro is expanded. I didn't test this on anything earlier
> than SBCL 1.4.4, but I don't believe this behavior is version
> dependent.
>
> -Eric