On 4/8/12 12:28 PM, Nikodemus Siivola 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 with this. If the library needs a special encoding, let the library specify it. ASDF won't break any existing definitions and will support systems just fine. I think it's a strong indication that the current asdf behavior has worked without too many complaints about encodings is a good sign that whatever the default is works pretty well as the default. (Being illiterate, ASCII is all I need, except when I want to play with other encodings on purpose.) Ray _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
