Discussing the Comprehensive Common Lisp Archive Net

Gary King | 1 Jan 2008 16:28

Re: ASDF test-op

Hi Robert,

I think that your proposal(s) are both steps in the right direction.  
Just to clarify (and to think out load), there are two issues we'd  
like to solve:

  1. allow ASDF to communicate the results of an operation back to the  
caller
  2. control the stream to which ASDF sends output during an operation

In particular, we'd like to do this for test-ops but other ops could  
also make use of this.

The most general solution might be to

  1. add a generic function:

      (defgeneric output-stream-for-component-and-operation (component  
operation))

  2. add an `output-stream` slot to operation

  3. add an around method to perform

		(defmethod perform :around ((operation operation) (c component))
		  (let ((*standard-output* (output-stream-for-operation-and-component
					    operation component)))
		    (call-next-method)))

  4. and a "default" value for output-stream-for-component-and-operation

(Continue reading)

Gary King | 2 Jan 2008 01:23

Re: [PATCH] have OPERATION-DONE-P return NIL for TEST-OP by default

I'd like to commit this; is there any dissent?

On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Luis Oliveira wrote:

> Gary King <gwking <at> metabang.com> writes:
>> however, that I'd prefer to dispatch only on systems, not components
>> (only because it seems more minimal). I'm also less convinced about
>> the component-depends-on method. Maybe that should also go only for
>> systems. Either way, if these are documented, it shouldn't be a
>> problem for people to override them as needed. (Though that should be
>> tested).
>
> That makes sense to me.  The attached patch does that instead.
>
> Index: asdf.lisp
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/cclan/asdf/asdf.lisp,v
> retrieving revision 1.110
> diff -u -r1.110 asdf.lisp
> --- asdf.lisp	27 Sep 2007 13:15:06 -0000	1.110
> +++ asdf.lisp	11 Dec 2007 00:01:30 -0000
>  <at>  <at>  -861,6 +861,9  <at>  <at> 
> (defmethod perform ((operation test-op) (c component))
>   nil)
>
> +(defmethod operation-done-p ((operation test-op) (c system))
> +  nil)
> +
> (defgeneric load-preferences (system operation)
>   (:documentation "Called to load system preferences after <perform

(Continue reading)

Robert P. Goldman | 2 Jan 2008 03:56

Re: [PATCH] have OPERATION-DONE-P return NIL for TEST-OP by default

My only counter is that we're contemplating other changes to the test-op; maybe we should have that
discussion and commit all relevant changes in one fell swoop instead of piecemeal and possibly inconsistently.
In regards to which, I will try to answer your email tomorrow, when I'm at something more capable than this treo!
___
Robert P. Goldman
Senior Scientist, SIFT, LLC
www.sift.info

 ..... Original Message .......
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 19:23:24 -0500 "Gary King" <gwking <at> metabang.com> wrote:
>I'd like to commit this; is there any dissent?
>
>On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:50 PM, Luis Oliveira wrote:
>
>> Gary King <gwking <at> metabang.com> writes:
>>> however, that I'd prefer to dispatch only on systems, not components
>>> (only because it seems more minimal). I'm also less convinced about
>>> the component-depends-on method. Maybe that should also go only for
>>> systems. Either way, if these are documented, it shouldn't be a
>>> problem for people to override them as needed. (Though that should be
>>> tested).
>>
>> That makes sense to me.  The attached patch does that instead.
>>
>> Index: asdf.lisp
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvsroot/cclan/asdf/asdf.lisp,v
>> retrieving revision 1.110
>> diff -u -r1.110 asdf.lisp
>> --- asdf.lisp	27 Sep 2007 13:15:06 -0000	1.110

(Continue reading)

Robert Goldman | 2 Jan 2008 15:08

Re: ASDF test-op

Gary King wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> 
> I think that your proposal(s) are both steps in the right direction.
> Just to clarify (and to think out load), there are two issues we'd like
> to solve:
> 
>  1. allow ASDF to communicate the results of an operation back to the
> caller

This one seems to require more radical surgery and a good deal of thought.

Proposal:  let's put a solution to #2 in place because we can do this
with RELATIVELY little modification to ASDF 1.x.  Your #1 seems to edge
us very clear to ASDF 2.0.

I don't *mind* that, but I'd like to see a solution to #2 not be put on
the back-burner for that long.

>  2. control the stream to which ASDF sends output during an operation
> 
> In particular, we'd like to do this for test-ops but other ops could
> also make use of this.
> 
> The most general solution might be to
> 
>  1. add a generic function:
> 
>      (defgeneric output-stream-for-component-and-operation (component
> operation))

(Continue reading)

Gary King | 2 Jan 2008 20:05

Re: [PATCH] have OPERATION-DONE-P return NIL for TEST-OP by default

Hi Robert,

Agreed.

On Jan 1, 2008, at 9:56 PM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:

> My only counter is that we're contemplating other changes to the  
> test-op; maybe we should have that discussion and commit all  
> relevant changes in one fell swoop instead of piecemeal and possibly  
> inconsistently.
> In regards to which, I will try to answer your email tomorrow, when  
> I'm at something more capable than this treo!

--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

Todd Sabin | 2 Jan 2008 21:04

Re: ASDF test-op

Robert Goldman <rpgoldman <at> real-time.com> writes:

>>  2. control the stream to which ASDF sends output during an operation
>> 
>> In particular, we'd like to do this for test-ops but other ops could
>> also make use of this.
>> 
>> The most general solution might be to
>> 
>>  1. add a generic function:
>> 
>>      (defgeneric output-stream-for-component-and-operation (component
>> operation))
>> 
>>  2. add an `output-stream` slot to operation
>
> 2.5 Add an :output-stream initarg to operation.  I figure that this was
> implicit in your 2, but just wanted to be explicit...
> [etc.]

Hi,

Doesn't ASDF already write all of its output to a particular stream,
namely *verbose-out*?  (Provided you've bound it to something, of
course) Couldn't you just document that test-op writers should write
to that stream?  Or maybe that doesn't work because, by default, it's
bound to nil, so you define another dynamic variable *test-output*, or
something, and document that?

I guess I don't really understand the problem you're solving, and I'm

(Continue reading)

Robert Goldman | 2 Jan 2008 21:54

Re: ASDF test-op

Todd Sabin wrote:
> Robert Goldman <rpgoldman <at> real-time.com> writes:
> 
>>>  2. control the stream to which ASDF sends output during an operation
>>>
>>> In particular, we'd like to do this for test-ops but other ops could
>>> also make use of this.
>>>
>>> The most general solution might be to
>>>
>>>  1. add a generic function:
>>>
>>>      (defgeneric output-stream-for-component-and-operation (component
>>> operation))
>>>
>>>  2. add an `output-stream` slot to operation
>> 2.5 Add an :output-stream initarg to operation.  I figure that this was
>> implicit in your 2, but just wanted to be explicit...
>> [etc.]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Doesn't ASDF already write all of its output to a particular stream,
> namely *verbose-out*?  (Provided you've bound it to something, of
> course) Couldn't you just document that test-op writers should write
> to that stream?  Or maybe that doesn't work because, by default, it's
> bound to nil, so you define another dynamic variable *test-output*, or
> something, and document that?
> 
> I guess I don't really understand the problem you're solving, and I'm

(Continue reading)

Gary King | 2 Jan 2008 23:28

Re: ASDF test-op

Hi Todd,

What Robert said.

>> Doesn't ASDF already write all of its output to a particular stream,
>> namely *verbose-out*?

Yes, ASDF sends _its_ output to *verbose-out* which will be *standard- 
output* if you pass in :verbose t to the operate function (which is  
the default).

>> I guess I don't really understand the problem you're solving, and I'm
>> wondering why all the CLOS machinery is necessary...

The CLOS machinery probably isn't necessary but it's damn fun <smile>.  
More seriously, the machinery is there to allow customization on both  
a per-system basis and a per-operation basis. I can imagine wanting to  
save off compiler information separately from test information, for  
example.

HTH,
--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.

(Continue reading)

Todd Sabin | 3 Jan 2008 00:25

Re: ASDF test-op

Robert Goldman <rpgoldman <at> real-time.com> writes:
> Todd Sabin wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Doesn't ASDF already write all of its output to a particular stream,
>> namely *verbose-out*?  (Provided you've bound it to something, of
>> course) Couldn't you just document that test-op writers should write
>> to that stream?  Or maybe that doesn't work because, by default, it's
>> bound to nil, so you define another dynamic variable *test-output*, or
>> something, and document that?
>> 
>> I guess I don't really understand the problem you're solving, and I'm
>> wondering why all the CLOS machinery is necessary...
>> 
>
> What we're trying to avoid is having the test outputs be mixed in with
> the normal ASDF outputs.
>
> Here's a concrete bad (by "bad" I mean "undesirable," not "buggy")
> behavior I have seen:
>
> I have a test-op for a large and complex system.  This test op loads
> multiple ASDF components, each of which gets compiled.
>
> The problem is that instead of getting a nice printed output from my
> testing, I get a stew of compiler messages and test outputs all mooshed
> together.  This makes it hard for me to see if the tests went ok.
>
> So I'd like to send the test outputs off somewhere else, so I don't have

(Continue reading)

Todd Sabin | 3 Jan 2008 00:48

Re: ASDF test-op

Gary King <gwking <at> metabang.com> writes:

> Hi Todd,
>
> What Robert said.
>
>>> Doesn't ASDF already write all of its output to a particular stream,
>>> namely *verbose-out*?
>
> Yes, ASDF sends _its_ output to *verbose-out* which will be *standard-
> output* if you pass in :verbose t to the operate function (which is
> the default).
>
>>> I guess I don't really understand the problem you're solving, and I'm
>>> wondering why all the CLOS machinery is necessary...
>
> The CLOS machinery probably isn't necessary but it's damn fun <smile>.
> More seriously, the machinery is there to allow customization on both
> a per-system basis and a per-operation basis. I can imagine wanting to
> save off compiler information separately from test information, for
> example.

I just replied to Robert, the essence of which is that I still don't
quite see the need, and I think what's been proposed (as I understand
it) won't work out the way you want.

Maybe a full patch of what you're proposing would help.

--

-- 
Todd Sabin                                          <tsabin <at> optonline.net>

(Continue reading)

Group

gmane.lisp.cclan.general.

Search Archive

Page

1 | 2

Articles in period: 11

January 2008

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane

Recent entries

Consolidating Common Lisp Libraries (5 Nov 2012)
XCVB patch for split-sequence (23 Oct 2009)
How to depend on a system optionally? (18 May 2009)
sourceforge website + cliki (8 May 2009)
git repo on cl.net trashed?! (8 May 2009)
git repository for ASDF (30 Apr 2009)
ASDF:OPERATE should bind *PACKAGE* and *READTABLE* (29 Apr 2009)
[gwking@metabang.com: asdf to cl.net; cvs to git] (25 Jan 2009)
asdf to cl.net; cvs to git (25 Jan 2009)
wither ASDF (14 Jan 2009)
aside from the pangs of history, what about moving ASDF to common-lisp (13 Jan 2009)
ASDF on MSWin (12 Jan 2009)
MISSING-DEPENDENCY not providing some retry restart? (10 Jan 2009)
Add CLEAN-OP to ASDF? (29 Dec 2008)
asdf patch: clisp has mop (29 Dec 2008)
How do I replace my broken ':perform' forms? (8 Dec 2008)
[PATCH] COMPONENT-DEPENDS-ON and operation subclasses (7 Nov 2008)
asdf replacement (18 Oct 2008)
a non-contentious patch for ASDF... (15 Oct 2008)
adding system-loaded-p to ASDF (15 Oct 2008)
rfc - delay the parsing of system components (8 Oct 2008)

Archives

1	November 2012
2	October 2009
21	May 2009
7	April 2009
38	January 2009
11	December 2008
1	November 2008
22	October 2008
26	September 2008
1	August 2008
4	July 2008
30	June 2008
16	May 2008
11	April 2008
10	March 2008
34	February 2008
11	January 2008
7	December 2007
11	November 2007
2	October 2007
13	September 2007
11	August 2007
5	July 2007
20	June 2007
14	May 2007
36	April 2007
8	March 2007
14	February 2007
24	January 2007
5	December 2006
2	November 2006
22	October 2006
5	August 2006
14	July 2006
33	June 2006
38	May 2006
16	March 2006
12	February 2006
3	January 2006
71	December 2005
3	November 2005
5	August 2005
2	July 2005
2	May 2005
3	April 2005
3	February 2005
7	November 2004
2	October 2004
6	September 2004
11	August 2004
4	July 2004
2	June 2004
16	May 2004
5	April 2004
1	March 2004
6	February 2004
24	January 2004
7	December 2003
3	November 2003
14	October 2003
2	September 2003
17	August 2003
9	July 2003
11	June 2003
22	May 2003
10	April 2003
13	March 2003
4	February 2003
3	January 2003
7	December 2002
6	November 2002
13	October 2002
11	September 2002
7	August 2002
9	July 2002
34	June 2002
2	May 2002
2	April 2002
1	March 2002

Design

Zawodny | Right Menu | Left Menu

Your Own Design

Paste the URL of your CSS below. Download CSS template