[asdf-devel] Is this necessary in this form? Re: ASDF 1.501

[Robert Goldman]

On 2/2/10 Feb 2 -4:13 PM, james anderson wrote:
> 
> On 2010-02-02, at 22:48 , Robert Goldman wrote:
> 
>> On 2/2/10 Feb 2 -11:39 AM, james anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2010-02-02, at 18:17 , Faré wrote:
>>
>>>>>  (c) Asdf binary locations / asdf output locations
>>>> ABL was already merged into ASDF by gwking. While I think it was a
>>>> generally good move, it fails (b), and I think can and should be
>>>> redone better.
>>>
>>> then, once asdf is configurable, is there any reason to not take abl
>>> out of the core?
>>
>> Can you explain what is meant, exactly, by "take abl out of the core"?
> 
> none of the respective functions or variables are defined if just  
> asdf.lisp is loaded.

Why is this important?  I can see that it /is/ important to you, but I
don't follow why.  [this is not intended as a snippy way of saying "this
isn't important; it is a bona fide request for information.]

> 
>> For that matter, I don't know what "configurable" means in this  
>> context.
>>  "Reads an init file"?  It was always configurable in the sense that I
>> could load my asdf:*central-registry*, and I developed several  
>> utilities
>> for configuring ASDF using only this rudimentary facility.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow this.  I certainly do /not/ want to see us  
>> revert
>> to the days when asdf-binary-locations was a separate download.
> 
> if by 'separate download' you mean a separate file, why not?
> if your requirement is, that it be in the same tar package, that  
> makes sense.

My requirement is that after loading asdf you should be able to do
something equivalent to

(asdf:oos 'asdf:load-op :asdf-binary-locations)

or some similar thing like

(require 'asdf-binary-locations)

and it should Just Work in the sense that A-B-L just worked --- it will
tease apart binaries for different lisp implementations.

[It's more than OK with me that after that there should be some way to
be more sophisticated about this, per Faré]

The reason I'm not necessarily agreeing with you is that "in the same
tarball" doesn't necessarily entail "trivially loadable," although it might.

Best,
Robert