>>: Faré

>> when asdf-ecl was initially written, its load-fasl-op was intended
>> as the default way to load a system. Because of implementation bugs
>> revealed as ASDF improved its testing, this feature was disabled at
>> some point while developing ASDF 3.1. Now that these implementation
>> bugs seem to have been solved, for both ECL and MKCL, the question is:
>> do you guys want me to make load-bundle-op (as it is now named)
>> the default *load-system-operation* on ECL and/or MKCL?

>:JCB
> I have been away from ASDF related concerns long enough for me
> to be unable to form a precise understanding of what such move would
> precisely mean right now, sorry.  But I will try to push out the door
> MKCL 1.1.10, the latest maintenance release of the MKCL 1.1.X line,
> before the end of this month. And as part of that operation I want
> to upgrade the bundled ASDF to 3.1.5.  So I'll have then a great
> opportunity to get reacquainted with all those load-XXX-op questions,
> and I should be able to have an informed opinion by then.
>
The question is whether you prefer to load a previously compiled system
via a single .fasb or via plenty of .fas (which wasn't previously working).

> Are we talking about something like #'cl:lisp-implementation-version and
> related facilities? If so then you could be interested in:
>
> #'si:mkcl-major-version
> #'si:mkcl-minor-version
> #'si:mkcl-patch-level
>
Is (lisp-implementation-version) guaranteed to be the concatenation
of these, with no trailing data?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
...so this guy walks into a bar.
"The usual, Mr. Descartes?" the barman asked.
"I think not," Rene replied, and promptly disappeared.