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

[Faré]

>>> 2.  We should define in the grammar simple-names and structured names.
>>> Simple names have no "/" and structured names may have a slash.
>>>
>> Where do we care? System names are not passed to the above function.
>
> We care for two reasons:
>
> 1.  To put in the DEFSYSTEM grammar in the manual and
>
> 2.  So that people don't later on try to hijack this function to do
> something for which it was not intended.
>
Can't we just say that a component name is a string, then explain how
the pathname default is computed from that string?

>>> 3.  The period character should be forbidden in /both/ simple and
>>> structured names because of oddities with pathname types.
>> Wait, there are plenty of (:static-file "foo.bar") around the world!
>> Do you propose to make them invalid?
>
> Ick.  Good point.  OK, have to leave those.  Note that we have already
> documented that those can lead to oddities across lisps.
>
At ITA we also have directories named after protocol versions, i.e.
"foo-V1.200". We do want to keep the ability to have such names, thank you.

>>>   5.2 The use of a structured name implicitly overrides the default
>>> relative pathname for modules.  [a test should go here!]
>>>
>> Isn't that what's currently happening? If not, that's a bug that should
>> be fixed and tested for. Sigh. Too little testing happening indeed.
>
> It's not that it isn't happening, it's that we need to specify what
> /should/ happen in the manual, for the next time someone wades in and
> starts changing things....
>
Yes. Documenting and testing are a bitch. They are what is preventing
a 2.0 release now.

>> What about we use Stefil for testing ASDF?
>
> I'm a little reluctant to see this done, if only because I don't want to
> force either additional training, or additional dependencies on the few
> people who bother to submit patches.
>
> This will make STEFIL the third unit test framework I will have to
> master (NST, our own; FiveAM for the JSON library); where does this stop?
>
I'm fine if you think either NST or FiveAM fits the bill,
as long as the thing is free software and is supported by clbuild.
I think STEFIL is simple enough to learn and use.

> And does STEFIL handle the kinds of tests we have, where you have to
> start new lisp jobs to do tests (seems like many test frameworks don't).
>
We may have to bind special variables (e.g. *defined-systems*) and to
delete-package stuff created by test files, possibly using fixtures.
I suppose any half-decent testing infrastructure can do it.
I like the general design of STEFIL, but I will accept about anything.

> That said, I don't care enough to say we should /not/ do this if someone
> else has the energy to do it.
If no one does anything nor raises a valid objection, I may commit
something someday. Though I'd be more interested in revamping XCVB.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
"If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."
		— As seen on a button