Starting with ASDF 3 (2013), ASDF officially supports "secondary systems", i.e. additional systems named in an asd, beside the main one. For the additional systems to be findable by ASDF, though, their name must be of the form "foo/bar" where "foo.asd" is the name of the file, and "foo" is called the primary system name. ASDF1 and ASDF2 would let you define those systems, as well as other systems of arbitrary names, but would be incapable of finding them. By badly copying each other, Lispers have developed a lot of misnamed secondary system the name of which doesn't match the pattern. I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING when the condition is detected, and at some point, make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR. Cleaning up this mess will also prevent a subtle class of errors, such as when two .asd files define each other's systems (see test case test-mutual-redefinition.script in asdf/test). —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Demand the establishment of the government in its rightful home at Disneyland.
On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:19, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
Starting with ASDF 3 (2013), ASDF officially supports "secondary systems", i.e. additional systems named in an asd, beside the main one. For the additional systems to be findable by ASDF, though, their name must be of the form "foo/bar" where "foo.asd" is the name of the file, and "foo" is called the primary system name.
ASDF1 and ASDF2 would let you define those systems, as well as other systems of arbitrary names, but would be incapable of finding them. By badly copying each other, Lispers have developed a lot of misnamed secondary system the name of which doesn't match the pattern.
I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING when the condition is detected, and at some point, make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
Cleaning up this mess will also prevent a subtle class of errors, such as when two .asd files define each other's systems (see test case test-mutual-redefinition.script in asdf/test).
I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING when the condition is detected, and at some point, make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ? —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Socialists, who want everyone enslaved, don't object to private slave-ownership that it implies slaves, but that it implies non-slaves.
On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING when the condition is detected, and at some point, make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ?
I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will take a long time to unwind. Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I expect to be around for the lifetime of that version. As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems unacceptable. Please put it in ASDF4. Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I happen to have a strong one here. With respect, Mark
I don't read fare's email as forbidding secondary systems, just those that are misnamed. So I don't think he's proposing to remove features, just check compliance with the naming convention. Maybe the proposal at hand is not described crisply enough. Sent from my iPad
On Nov 18, 2016, at 07:58, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING when the condition is detected, and at some point, make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ?
I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will take a long time to unwind. Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I expect to be around for the lifetime of that version.
As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems unacceptable.
Please put it in ASDF4.
Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I happen to have a strong one here.
With respect, Mark
Yes, supported: Having #p"foo.asd" define systems "foo/test", "foo/bar", "foo/baz" in addition to "foo". ASDF can even find them if you (asdf:make :foo/test) without having loaded foo first. Unsupported: Having #p"foo.asd" define "foo-test", "bar", "foo-unparsable-mess_with.angry^#$*characters", etc. Please use secondary systems that are properly named. I <3 secondary/systems. The slash ensures ASDF can find your secondary systems. See https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/51 for the proposed change: issuing a WARNING (not an ERROR, so your builds won't break, and the warning does not happen within a COMPILE-FILE either). —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Clairvoyant, n.: A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that which is invisible to her patron — namely, that he is a blockhead. — Ambrose Bierce On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.net> wrote:
I don't read fare's email as forbidding secondary systems, just those that are misnamed. So I don't think he's proposing to remove features, just check compliance with the naming convention.
Maybe the proposal at hand is not described crisply enough.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 18, 2016, at 07:58, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING when the condition is detected, and at some point, make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ?
I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will take a long time to unwind. Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I expect to be around for the lifetime of that version.
As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems unacceptable.
Please put it in ASDF4.
Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I happen to have a strong one here.
With respect, Mark
I hear by retract my objections. Thanks for the civility to my misplaced concern. Years in CONS, Mark Sent from my iPad
On 18 Nov 2016, at 16:50, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, supported: Having #p"foo.asd" define systems "foo/test", "foo/bar", "foo/baz" in addition to "foo". ASDF can even find them if you (asdf:make :foo/test) without having loaded foo first.
Unsupported: Having #p"foo.asd" define "foo-test", "bar", "foo-unparsable-mess_with.angry^#$*characters", etc.
Please use secondary systems that are properly named. I <3 secondary/systems. The slash ensures ASDF can find your secondary systems.
See https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/51 for the proposed change: issuing a WARNING (not an ERROR, so your builds won't break, and the warning does not happen within a COMPILE-FILE either).
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Clairvoyant, n.: A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that which is invisible to her patron — namely, that he is a blockhead. — Ambrose Bierce
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.net> wrote: I don't read fare's email as forbidding secondary systems, just those that are misnamed. So I don't think he's proposing to remove features, just check compliance with the naming convention.
Maybe the proposal at hand is not described crisply enough.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 18, 2016, at 07:58, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson@panix.com> wrote:
I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING when the condition is detected, and at some point, make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ?
I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will take a long time to unwind. Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I expect to be around for the lifetime of that version.
As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems unacceptable.
Please put it in ASDF4.
Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I happen to have a strong one here.
With respect, Mark
participants (4)
-
evenson -
Faré -
Mark Evenson
-
Robert P. Goldman