Would it satisfy SBCL and SLIME maintainers if I
* added an option to COMPILE-FILE so that file and date info would not
be saved in the file, and
* added an option to LOAD so that you can add that information back
into the debug info when you load the fasl
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That
unalterable rule applies both to God and man.
-- John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (Lord Acton)
in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5,1887
2009/10/8 Faré <fahree@...>:
> 2009/10/8 James Y Knight <foom@...>:
>> On Oct 8, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
>>> Faré <fahree@...> writes:
>>>> How exactly does the time tag help you? Are you just comparing for
>>>> And what do you do in case of inequality? Could you do with the
>>>> of (cons source optimization-settings) instead?
>>> It compares with the file-write-date of a buffer's file.
>> Perhaps a simple fix would be to have sbcl write an md5sum of the
>> source file instead of a timestamp of the source file?
> Would be better than a date in that at least the result would be
> deterministic, but it would make the most trivial change in a comment
> cause the fasl to always be different, even if the generated code is
> I'd much rather be able to strip the fasl from any of this file or
> time information, and/or carry it out-of-band.
> [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
> A real person has two reasons for doing anything ... a good reason and
> the real reason.