[asdf-devel] patch for component-relative-pathname

[james anderson]

good morning;

On 2010-02-22, at 01:41 , Robert Goldman wrote:

> On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -6:35 PM, james anderson wrote:
>> a question:
>>
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>
>>
>> why is this better than to leave names atomic and provide a standard
>> syntax to parse component relative (sic) pathnames?
>
> Note that my whole last email is a red herring wrt this question.  My
> last email assumes that Fare's change stays in, and I'm trying to  
> write
> it up in the documentation.
>
> I.e., "let's you and him fight."  I am bowing out of this discussion.

i assert no disagreement here.
i read a note, which opened with the confession, that these bits  
"bamboozle", and then proceeded over a page to attempt to construct a  
logic which would remain stable in the reader's mind.
in light of which, i express the concern, should someone relatively  
experienced with this code need to go to these lengths, is it the  
right thing to have done?

as an alternative, was it considered, to separate the default  
protocol for the relative pathname slot value with its  
cononicalization step for construction of the component-relative- 
pathname? the present implementation combines the two.[1] in a manner  
which will likely to continue to resist logic, as, by accounts, it is  
a matter of historic circumstance. it will always suffer in that it  
treats the name differently then the "actual" relative pathname.

---
[1] : http://common-lisp.net/gitweb?p=projects/asdf/ 
asdf.git;a=blob;f=asdf.lisp;h=530468b89c9211daed98d955d602f5ff834f6dcc;h 
b=d2b7f979ba89cf30a58ca9c9e707651830802fda#l1036