Dear Juanjo,
ASDF 1.596 includes all the fixes I have for ECL. From there to 1.601 I also made a few fixes for the sake of passing tests, and defined and exported a function COMPILE-FILE-PATHNAME* but 1.601 and 1.596 are probably functionally equivalent as far as delivering on ECL goes. I still would recommend 1.601 as it is an "official" release (whatever that means) whereas 1.596 isn't.
Note that ECL passes tests, if only I tell the test suite to not worry about the warnings ECL issues while compiling asdf.lisp. It is probably a bug in ECL that it should issue these warnings: plenty of unused variable warnings for variables used while dispatching methods, warnings about an unused variables CLOS::.GENERIC-FUNCTION.SI::TEMP as introduced by ECL itself in some macro. Also annoying notes about .COMBINED-METHOD-ARGS. was undefined. Compiler assumes it is a global. Unknown type (VALUES &REST T) And one about ECL expecting two arguments from unintern. The problem with ignoring warnings from ECL is that, though I ignore bogus warnings now, I may be ignoring valid warnings tomorrow.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Due to circumstances beyond your control, you are master of your fate and captain of your soul.
On 4 February 2010 04:10, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll juanjose.garciaripoll@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
And so, regarding ECL: please upgrade ASDF to 1.601 if you can. It would be nice. And reduce the asdf self-upgrade strictures.
The point is that I upgraded to 1.596 on Samium's request and assurance that it works with ECL, and now we reached 1.601 I want to make a release of ECL soon and need somehow a hint that the choice is right and will not be broken in the near future.