Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

regressions due to osicat #12

Closed
avodonosov opened this issue Dec 8, 2013 · 3 comments
Closed

regressions due to osicat #12

avodonosov opened this issue Dec 8, 2013 · 3 comments

Comments

@avodonosov
Copy link

Since quicklisp 2013-11-11 dbd-sqlite3 system can not be loaded on systems, where it was loading OK before. Namely Windows systems, or ECL bytecode compiler.

This is because of the new dependency osicat.

As far as I see, osicat is only used in a single form: (osicat:regular-file-exists-p database-path)

IMHO it is too restrictive to reject some lisp platforms by using osicat for such a simple need.

Why not just use (cl:probe-file database-path).

@eudoxia0
Copy link

eudoxia0 commented Dec 8, 2013

Alternatively, use cl-fad to list directories and cl-ppcre to match the regexp to the list.

@PuercoPop
Copy link

Our (uiop/filesystem:file-exists-p) which comes with asdf.

@fukamachi
Copy link
Owner

Resolved in #13. Thanks PuercoPop.

kat-co added a commit to kat-co/cl-dbi that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2020
Passing large numbers of arguments within a `&rest` variable is not
very portable Common Lisp because of
[call-arguments-limit](http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/v_call_a.htm).

For performance reasons, users may want many bind parameters to take
advantage of so-called extended inserts, e.g.:

`INSERT INTO tbl_name (a,b,c) VALUES(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),(?,?,?),...`

When this is the case, cl-dbi is artificially coupling how many `&rest`
parameters can be passed with how many extended inserts a DB can
support thus potentially artificially limiting an application's
performance. Further, it becomes more difficult to write portable code
because of this implementation detail.

fixes fukamachi#12
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants