[asdf-devel] I think new ASDF has busted asdf-binary-locations
james.anderson at setf.de
Wed Sep 9 16:15:52 UTC 2009
On 2009-09-09, at 17:54 , Robert Goldman wrote:
> james anderson wrote:
>>> 2. Logical pathnames are defined in ANSI CL to use case-flattened
>>> pathnames. That means they are an extremely poor fit for modern
>>> case-sensitive file systems. Some number of existing ASDF systems
>>> break because their directory structures contain case-sensitive
>>> pathnames. From the Hyperspec grammar for logical pathname
>>> (section 19.3.1):
>>> "word---one or more uppercase letters, digits, and hyphens."
>>> As long as SBCL hews to the letter of the ANSI spec for logical
>>> pathnames, I regard logical pathnames as useless in portable
>>> code. I
>>> now use them only in code that, for one reason or another, will
>>> only run
>>> in ACL. [Note that this is /not/ meant as a criticism of the SBCL
>> is it perhaps time to deal with this as a community, rather that each
>> asserting that they know better?
> Probably, but I don't think we should wait to get the function that
> A-B-L provides until we have fixed logical pathnames. At the
> expense of
> being flip, that's like saying "we'll wait until the Messiah comes."
> Especially given how many years the community has been saying "what
> comes after the ANSI standard?"
there are now at least two re-implementations of (at least some
aspects of) logical pathnames: a-b-l and fare's. in each case,
because of the belief, that the language offered no alternative. i
suggest that it is not only flip, but short-sighted, to exaggerate
any impediments so as to render the problem unassailable.
has anyone ever tried to specify a form of logical pathname which
would suffice for their use cases. are the only real issues the case-
folding and the word constituents? i ask, as i've found that, exactly
by observing those limitations, recent runtime implementations are
sufficiently consistent to portably define logical hosts for use with
More information about the asdf-devel