Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> writes: > On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -9:00 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote: >> Robert Goldman writes: >> >>> On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -5:54 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote: >>>> >>>> Although the way to extend operations by additional initargs is somewhat >>>> cumbersome, it's possible. Unfortunately, the sugar forms LOAD-SYSTEM, >>>> COMPILE-SYSTEM, and TEST-SYSTEM do not take additional initargs. >>> >>> I see that the docstrings for these functions seem to have some form of >>> markup in them that I do not recognize ( [operate][] ). Can you comment >>> on this? >> >> No it's what was in there. > > Hm. Possibly it's some creeping Markdownization. At any rate, unless > we're going to adopt some docstring markup scheme for ASDF, which I > don't favor (ASDF should not have external dependencies), we should > replace all the "( [operate][] )" strings with simply "OPERATE". > > I have mixed feelings about &allow-other-keys. In general, I hate it, > because it makes the code no longer self-documenting. Anyone's guess > how to call the function.
I plan to add necessary magic to slime so valid keywords will be shown in the minibuffer as part of arglist display. > So here's a question for you, should we: > > 1. Add &allow-other-keys for these wrapper functions or > > 2. Figure that if you are supplying arbitrary keywords, the safety > belts are off and you should be forced to use OPERATE or OOS. > > I'm OK with either. Actually, &allow-other-keys would not be necessary if these weren't normal functions but generic functions. Then methods can add valid keywords. And there's a programmatic protocol to get at all valid keywords. I'd favor that approach. -T. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
