On 23 Aug 2016, at 04:23, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Elias,
Dear Faré,
I gave a cursory look at your PR curently culminating at https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/commit/f8068ef93f71908f3c7786c62e94...
thanks!
1- Why do you (setf (fdefinition '%wait-process-result) #'wait-process-result) ? I can't find any mention of that symbol in quicklisp besides copies of asdf or uiop. I propose you kill that old symbol and rename the new one to whatever you prefer. wait-process or process-wait, without -result, would be nice. Though whether you use process as prefix or suffix, try to make it coherent in all function names.
Great, the fewer unnecessary names the better. I was wondering about the process prefix/suffix already. I found alive-p (vs. process-alive-p) and status (vs. process-status) too short and not self-explanatory. But then, I found process-close-streams too long (albeit not by a lot so maybe that’s actually a good name) and process-close confusing weird. So currently, I have, among the exported functions:
- process-alive-p - terminate-process - wait-process - close-streams
2- Similarly, when deciding what to do with internals (or even externals), grep'ing the contents of quicklisp is good policy. Though regarding external symbol, even if no one in quicklisp uses it, it's good citizenship to go through a complete 2-year obsolescence cycle.
The sources for every project on quicklisp? Is there a central repository that holds all of those, or a simple way to obtain them?
3- I find %if-on-lispworks7+ particularly ugly. I'd create a feature and add it in common-lisp.lisp. But I admit this is a weak preference.
Yes, I found it terribly ugly, too. I wasn’t aware that adding to *features* was something you’re allowed to do. I’ve now done that in
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/commit/13df4e9364527dd5b9197012b1eb...
and the code has ended up looking quite a bit nicer again, in particular because with #+ instead of macros I don’t need to use find-symbol* and (declare (ignore)) will work.
I’ve also pushed a fix for the LispWorks 6 warning in
https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/commit/590952a8afc9ca57e0a9cc917105...
(thanks a lot to Robert for helping me debug that!).
If we can agree on Robert’s unsupported-functionality error class, I’ll work that into the merge request, too.
Elias