Robert Goldman <[email protected]> writes: > Got it. So you didn't object to the old level of verbosity?
No, which is why I wrote that I'd be happy if the old behavior was restored. > I'm confused because it seemed like the alternatives were new, greater > verbosity, versus silence, neither of which seems very appealing to > me. Those are indeed both bad choices. > I guess the challenge that's specific to ql is that you'd like to be > able to throttle verbosity, but the use of invocations of LOAD-SYSTEM > inside .asd files (rather than in depends-on) breaks that, right? Is > the right answer (horrors! ;->) a dynamically bound verbosity-controller? Any change that I can ignore, and still get the current appearance, behavior, and semantics, is one I don't mind. Zach _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
