On 9/7/11 Sep 7 -11:33 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info mailto:rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:
I'd be happy to merge and push this if someone will test this out. Alternatively, if no member of asdf-devel but Juanjo will admit to using ECL, then I figure we should delegate responsibility to him for vetting patches to asdf-ecl.I try to ensure that the extensions do not interfere with the core and could take care of further testing if you give me a hint how to do so.
I am afraid that Faré overestimated the time I had available for ASDF! Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you.
I was looking over Faré's version of the patch. AFAICT, most of the patch would only affect your private codebase (asdf-ecl.lisp). The exceptions are:
1. Mods to OUTPUT-FILES and *COMPILE-OP-COMPILE-FILE-FUNCTION* for compile-op that are conditionalized on (member :ecl-bytecmp *features*)
I think it is safe (shouldn't interfere with any other implementations use of ASDF), but this use of *FEATURES* at *run-time* instead of the conventional use at compile-time makes me feel a little uncomfortable. It feels to me like an abuse of a facility.
I presume that this is necessary (instead of #+ecl-bytecmp) because you could have the SAME compiled version of asdf.lisp used in byte compiling and standard compiling contexts? Is there some reason you use a feature for this purpose instead of a dynamically bound variable (e.g., *ecl-bytecomp-p*) or a special ECL-BYTE-COMPILE-OP?
2. Export of *require-asdf-operator*. This seems entirely reasonable to me --- it's intended as a hook, so it seems like external access is The Right Thing.
LMK a bit more about #1, and then we should be able to get this merged and pushed.
I don't know of any special testing requirements. It would be good to get as many tests run on as many implementations as possible (both our internal tests and the informal tests that come from, e.g., Xach using the latest ASDF). I will run a bunch of tests on linux and Mac for several implementations.
Might be nice to set up some sort of web-checklist so that we can know when the tests are run, and on what lisps.
cheers, r