On 7/28/16 Jul 28 -10:47 PM, Faré wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Robert P. Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
Question: shouldn't I add this as
(deftype FATAL-CONDITION ...)
and try to use that everywhere, instead of writing duplicate code everywhere? That would also solve the "lists in match-condition-p" problem.
Indeed, that's an even better factorization.
I think the CCL folks agree that it was a mistake to make PROCESS-RESET a SERIOUS-CONDITION, but we have to live with it.
Yes. That's a good reason to export fatal-condition from uiop/image, since it's a generally useful abstraction perfectly fit for the purposes of uiop.
Hmmmm..... Actually, SERIOUS-CONDITION, as I read its documentation, is exactly the right abstraction -- it's just that CCL has broken it:
"All conditions serious enough to require interactive intervention..."
I don't want to export a new concept that is "Like SERIOUS-CONDITION, except patched for an implementation."
I'll fix this internal to ASDF and leave it at that. Some day I hope that FATAL-CONDITION will wither away.
Best, r