On 5 February 2011 17:14, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll juanjose.garciaripoll@googlemail.com wrote:
Please understand that all this is about not *hardcoding* in ASDF what the compiler should or should not do. All you are suggesting is about reader conditionalization (that means one ASDF file per compiler), hardcoding behavior based on externally defined flags (which may or may not exist at all in older or later releases), and other things that overcomplicate the problem.
Where is the behavior to be coded? Surely it must be coded somewhere. Is it unreasonable to upgrade ASDF when new code is required, and to change few boolean controls to select which branch of the code applies?
Argghh this does not work at all. I did not realize that ASDF's compilation now uses a temporary file name. That is really unfortunate because it means we can not really wrap inside compile-file* and also not around compile-file*, and we have to go back to the level of PERFORM.
Or perhaps we could factor ASDF to do renaming for all client methods in a more transparent way - problem being it would require invalidating existing extensions.
Attached is a diff where this customization is thus introduced at the only place where it makes sense, and it is done using a single special variable that can be dynamically changed. Seems to work with quicklisp
Here's a counter-proposal.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] To take five and return four, isn't giving — it's stealing. To take five by force, and return four under condition of obedience, is worse than stealing — it's enslaving. When most of these four are "returned" in the form of monopolized "services", charged a hefty price despite their inferior quality, and mixed with a large dose of propaganda — it's Government.