>> I would like to forestall facile answers to the above claim, too. I
>> don't just mean "SLIME would have to handle IN-READTABLE." SLIME would
>> have to be fixed, yes, but also ELI, Allegro Composer, Hemlock (or
>> whatever the CCL IDE is), LispWorks whatchamacallit, etc., etc.
>>
> True. Howev
I've opened a bug on launchpad for the technical issue:
Fix defsystem to accept strings as operation designators
https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1293292
I beg the maintainer to consider the technical issue for inclusion in 3.1.1,
if not the policy issue of promoting the result as "default".
I've open the following bug on launchpad for this issue:
A non-hidden default source tree
https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/1293278
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
A programming language is low level
when its programs require attention to the irrel
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
> PROPOSED NEXT STEPS:
>
> 1. A clear proposal for this modification be made. Right now the
> details of the proposed modification are wrapped in a fairly opaque
> discussion. The discussion is framed in terms that are either too vague
> I don't know enough to translate a darcs repo to git. I could probably
> manage this, but tcr buried the NAMED-READTABLES repo somehow inside an
> EDITOR-HINTS repo, and linked the two in some way I don't understand.
>
I have a script to do that somewhere on common-lisp.net.
I actually already d
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
>> Whichever makes sense for the given system, and that's the feature:
>> the user doesn't have to know which newfangled operation the system is using,
>> that will do the Right Thing™.
>> Once again, the person who knows the Right Thing™
Thank you very much! I look forward to merging and testing.
Best,
Robert
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 2014, at 22:12, Faré wrote:
> >
> > Robert, can you handle the merge when JCB comes with a cleaned up patch?
>
> Sure. And I will run the tests. Unfortunately, my Linux test environment
> has not been restored (indeed, i
Faré wrote:
>
>> > Well, but consider this hypothetical person who doesn't know what's
>> > going to happen and who isn't familiar with ASDF already.
>> >
>> > S/he types (asdf:make "foo") and *either* gets foo loaded into his/her
>> > lisp image or an executable file gets dropped onto his/her
PROPOSED NEXT STEPS:
1. A clear proposal for this modification be made. Right now the
details of the proposed modification are wrapped in a fairly opaque
discussion. The discussion is framed in terms that are either too vague
"Make the CL syntax predictable" or too specific -- very particular
p
Faré wrote:
>> > *This is partly my fault, but the current disarray of cl.net, the
>> > library's position as part of an abortive EDITOR-HINTS master system,
>> > and the previous maintainer's putting it into a revision control system
>> > (darcs) that I don't use and don't understand are additiona
Faré wrote:
> The clean thing to do would be to use named-readtables and/or
> cl-syntax, and have each file evaluate (in-readtable :foo) or have a
> perform :around method or around-compile hook that does it for you.
>
> We could also support your doing (in-readtable :foo) only once for the
> enti
> On Mar 15, 2014, at 22:12, Faré wrote:
>
> Robert, can you handle the merge when JCB comes with a cleaned up patch?
Sure. And I will run the tests. Unfortunately, my Linux test environment has
not been restored (indeed, it's now just sitting in a box since our office
move). So it would be
13 matches
Mail list logo
