Not exactly. The feature I (was trying to) resolve at compile time was just ECL versus other implementation. Byte compiler versus not would be resolved at run time. Cheers -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com> wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 18:53, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <juanjose.garciaripoll@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 18:33, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:
Question: any objection to modifying your patch so that we have something like:
#+ecl (defun use-ecl-byte-compiler-p () (member :ecl-bytecomp *features*)) #-ecl (defun use-ecl-byte-compiler-p () nil)
and then call the function in place of the member query in other code?
No. Juanjo will confirm, but IIUC it can change at runtime after having loaded ASDF, so it's
Yes, the change may happen after ASDF is loaded, without problems.
#+ecl (defun use-ecl-bytecode-compiler-p () (member :ecl-bytecmp *features*))
Isn't this the same as the code above?
If by "the code above" you mean your original patch and my merge thereof, then yes it is the same, with just a tiny bit of refactoring. If by "the code above" you mean Robert's version with #+ecl, then no, it's different, since Robert's version resolves the features at read-time; by the time the features are updated, it's then too late for ASDF to change its mind. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org