Interactive I/O is not reliable across implementations, and is also difficult to test.
Do we really need to support this? If you, as a programmer, really want interactive I/O, you should probably write your own wrapper to manage I/O to the program. Some enterprising soul could even write a clone of "expect" for CL.
I'd rather lose the :interactive option, than have it and have it work unreliably.
So I'm soliciting comments -- particularly from those who think we should keep it.
It seems like some people also have a means to search Quicklisp to screen suggestions like this. I'd also welcome feedback based on libraries in QL.
thanks, r
On 3 Nov 2016, at 16:18, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.net wrote:
Interactive I/O is not reliable across implementations, and is also difficult to test.
Do we really need to support this? If you, as a programmer, really want interactive I/O, you should probably write your own wrapper to manage I/O to the program. Some enterprising soul could even write a clone of "expect" for CL.
I'd rather lose the :interactive option, than have it and have it work unreliably.
So I'm soliciting comments -- particularly from those who think we should keep it.
It seems like some people also have a means to search Quicklisp to screen suggestions like this. I'd also welcome feedback based on libraries in QL.
thanks, r
Dear Robert,
I believe I’ve now addressed all the issues interactive output was having in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1638870
It’s indeed rather unfortunate that we cannot test interactive output in a reliable fashion. I think it’s sufficiently important a feature, though, that we should not remove it unless it’s broken beyond repair, which I believe it is not (the necessary repair in this case is contained in 2-3 merge requests).
Elias
-
Elias Pipping -
Robert Goldman