On 4/8/12 Apr 8 -7:37 PM, Faré wrote: > On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 15:28, Nikodemus Siivola > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 8 April 2012 17:36, Faré <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think requiring a few marginal hackers doing weird things >>> to specifiy :encoding :default is a small price to pay for everyone to be >>> able to specify >> >> I disagree. Consider this: >> >> X has a system that used to be in, say, LATIN-9. He uses latin-9 at >> home, and everything works fine. His users either use it as well, or >> at least another single-byte encoding. >> >> ASDF is updated, and X's user reports breakage. Everything works fine >> for X, because he didn't update ASDF yet. So he updates ASDF, and X >> updates his system to specify :LATIN-9 (or :DEFAULT, or whatever). >> >> Now another of his users reports breakage, because /they/ didn't >> update ASDF yet -- and their ASDF doesn't support :ENCODING, so things >> break. They update ASDF, which in turn breaks another :LATIN-N system >> they were using. >> >> The potential cost is non-trivial, and I really don't pretend to know >> eg. how many Japanese hackers user non-UTF-encodings in their source. >> >> IMO encouraging people to add :encoding :utf-8 is much saner. >> > I agree that transition costs must be considered.
This is somewhat OT, since it's really about general transition costs, but should we add a continuable error to parse-defsystem for handling unrecognized options? I like beating people over the head that this might not do what they want, but I don't like leaving them with no way to proceed. Possibly even better to have a continuable error that /remembers/ a defsystem option as something to be ignored. Then we wouldn't /keep/ complaining about :encoding over and over --- one continuable error continue and you'd be done. cheers, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
