[asdf-devel] Recognizing directories in a component name

[Faré]

Oh yes - this should hopefully also fix the problem with
(:static-file "foo.bar")
previously expanding to a (make-pathname :name "foo.bar" :type nil)
Now it would expand to
  (pathname "foo.bar")

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same
as to be right in doing it.     -- G.K. Chesterton




2009/8/28 Faré <fahree at gmail.com>:
> For years now, we at ITA have been satisfied with a patch that does
> the following while building QRes: allow to specify module names that
> include a directory component, without having to redundantly as in
>
>  (:module "subdir1/subdir2"
>  :components ((:file "subdir3/name3") (:file "subdir4/name4.subname4")))
>
> instead of the cumbersome (to be portable):
>
>  (:module "subdir1/subdir2" :pathname #.(make-pathname :directory
> '(:relative "subdir" "subdir2"))
>  :components ((:file "subdir3/name3" :pathname #.(make-pathname
> :directory '(:relative "subdir3" :name "name3")))
>  (:file "subdir4/name4.subname4" :pathname #.(make-pathname
> :directory '(:relative "subdir4" :name "name4.subname4"))))))
>
> Since there is active ASDF development again, I cleaned it up and here it is.
>
> The methods should replace those currently in ASDF. The helper
> function now uses the existing ASDF split function (as previously
> requested by Xof).
>
> The patch is both backwards compatible and portable, in that
> * the "/" character was previously forbidden in names of portable
> components without a :pathname statement, least it breaks miserably on
> most platforms.
> * the "/" character is now recognized by ASDF itself as a separator
> for directories later made with make-pathname, thus doing what is
> expected even on the odd platform without "/" as the pathname
> separator.
>
> [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
> Selfishness is the measure of all good (and bad) in the world. There cannot be
> any good whatsoever without a self to feel it. WHO is whatever "altruistic"
> oppression ever good for? No one. Why is gratuitous vandalism or
> well-intentioned mass murder bad? Not because it is selfish, but precisely
> because it hurts other people's selfish interest.
>