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

[Robert Goldman]

On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -3:37 AM, james anderson wrote:
> 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?

I am inclined to agree.  I'd be happier if we could just say something like

(:file "foo" :relative-directory "bar")

instead of

(:file "bar/foo")

For that matter, both of these are probably unnecessary now that module
dependencies work and we can do:

(:module "bar"
   :components ((:file "foo")))

So, question:  Fare, do we really need the additional hair now that
intra-system module dependencies work?  Wouldn't it be possible for you
to macrologize your names-as-pathnames extension and purge the hair from
the core of ASDF?

I'd love to see all this extra code get purged....

cheers,
r