Stelian Ionescu wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 10:05 -0600, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
Faré wrote:
I need to look into a means to identify these problematic cases. Ugh.
MOP not standardized. Ugh ugh ugh ugh. I'll see if I can pilfer code from Closer-MOP to render ENSURE-CLASS accessible.
Is this the moral of this story: code that wishes to be backwards compatible and portable can NEVER change the class hierarchy above an API-visible class, because there is no *portable* way to detect when someone's code will be affected.
What if the previous hierarchy was plain buggy?
Then going forward we have to introduce a NEW class to replace the old class.
I hope you're only referring to new changes, not the ones that already happened.
Yes, as I said to Pascal, this particular cat is already out of the bag.
As ASDF has substantially stabilized, though, we need to be more delicate about breaking backward compatibility going forward.
Cheers, r