[asdf-devel] Should ASDF define many packages?

[Faré]

On 31 August 2010 12:55, Nikodemus Siivola <nikodemus at random-state.net> wrote:
> On 19 August 2010 22:04, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Exporting random internal utilities from ASDF is a terrible idea, IMO.
>
The utilities are not completely random. I use them, and other people use them.

> People will use them, and then you will be oblidged to maintain them
> even when you decide that they're not what you wanted.
>
That's the whole point. I want to be able to (require :asdf) and then
use (asdf:getenv ...) to configure things. Not have to reinvent
merge-pathnames* or pathname-directory-pathname or split-string or
truenamize. As for aif and appendf they were singled out before my
time and I don't think there's anything wrong with them. Should I stop
exporting them? Possibly. But why? I don't have a strong opinion.

> They also pointlessly pollute the namespaces of clients who use ASDF.
>
One man's "pollution" is another man's "great stuff".

In any case, just as for any other package, if you (:use :ASDF)
instead of using ASDF:... prefixed symbols or (:import-from :ASDF ...)
them one by one, you accept that you'll get whichever symbols ASDF
will export in the future. You get what you ask for, and ASDF will not
stop changing just because of you.

> (It doesn't personally bother me, but it just seems wrong on pretty
> much every level.)
>
I agree that namespace management in CL is wrong on pretty much every level.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
If the human mind were simple enough to understand,
we'd be too simple to understand it.
	— Pat Bahn