Christophe Rhodes writes: > "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <t...@freebits.de> writes: > > > I don't like that behaviour at all for the following reasons: > > I do. (Not that I have a vote, but I think there is some value in > binary tools, which fail hard when things go wrong). Also possibly > relevant is the fact that some of my systems use the current interface, > in order to break early when something regresses; it may not be the best > interface, nor expose the most information possible, but it's used: so > please don't change the interface incompatibly. > > In particular, I think that your characterization of failurep from > compile-file being treated as a failure as "obtusive" is not helpful.
My posting refered to the _diagnostics_ that is output, and not to the aborting behaviour. What information do you currently deduce from "COMPILE-FILE warned ...", and "COMPILE-FILE failed" messages? My point is that the information that at the moment must be deduced, can hopefully be reported more efficiently. -T. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel