On 24 Apr 2024, at 3:39, Didier Verna wrote: > François-René ÐVB Rideau écrivait: > >> What are the methods defined by asdf-flv? > > In order to support file local variables, ASDF-FLV does this: > > (defmethod asdf:perform :around > ((operation asdf:load-op) (file asdf:cl-source-file)) > "Establish new dynamic bindings for file-local variables." > (progv *file-local-variables* > (mapcar #'symbol-value *file-local-variables*) > (call-next-method))) > > (defmethod asdf:perform :around > ((operation asdf:compile-op) (file asdf:cl-source-file)) > "Establish new dynamic bindings for file-local variables." > (progv *file-local-variables* > (mapcar #'symbol-value *file-local-variables*) > (call-next-method))) > > > The problem, of course, is that loading ASDF-FLV will override any > existing method with the same signature, and conversely, anything else > loaded afterward will override ASDF-FLV. > > ASDF-FLV could subclass ASDF:CL-SOURCE-FILE and specialize only on that > subclass, but that would defeat its pervasiveness and make it more > difficult to have multiple extensions working together. Hence Robert's > idea of mixins. My own idea was to have exported operations use a > special method combination allowing multiple methods with the same > signature.
The one thing that worries me about that is that I don't know how well all the supported lisp implementations handle defining new method combinations. But otherwise I agree that this would be an appropriate thing to do.
