>>: Faré >> when asdf-ecl was initially written, its load-fasl-op was intended >> as the default way to load a system. Because of implementation bugs >> revealed as ASDF improved its testing, this feature was disabled at >> some point while developing ASDF 3.1. Now that these implementation >> bugs seem to have been solved, for both ECL and MKCL, the question is: >> do you guys want me to make load-bundle-op (as it is now named) >> the default *load-system-operation* on ECL and/or MKCL?
>:JCB > I have been away from ASDF related concerns long enough for me > to be unable to form a precise understanding of what such move would > precisely mean right now, sorry. But I will try to push out the door > MKCL 1.1.10, the latest maintenance release of the MKCL 1.1.X line, > before the end of this month. And as part of that operation I want > to upgrade the bundled ASDF to 3.1.5. So I'll have then a great > opportunity to get reacquainted with all those load-XXX-op questions, > and I should be able to have an informed opinion by then. > The question is whether you prefer to load a previously compiled system via a single .fasb or via plenty of .fas (which wasn't previously working). > Are we talking about something like #'cl:lisp-implementation-version and > related facilities? If so then you could be interested in: > > #'si:mkcl-major-version > #'si:mkcl-minor-version > #'si:mkcl-patch-level > Is (lisp-implementation-version) guaranteed to be the concatenation of these, with no trailing data? —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org ...so this guy walks into a bar. "The usual, Mr. Descartes?" the barman asked. "I think not," Rene replied, and promptly disappeared.