[asdf-devel] never ending component relative pathnames

[Faré]

On 14 March 2010 21:04, james anderson <james.anderson at setf.de> wrote:
>
> On 2010-03-15, at 01:36 , Faré wrote:
>
>> Dear James,
>>
>> is there a tarball I can download with enough stuff to replace those
>> tests or yours?
>
> ?
> the tests are all in the one asdf-pathname-test.lisp file.
>
The amazon host is down. Also, when I last glanced, it looked like you
needed some subdirectory with test files.
Can you send on the list a tarball with the .lisp, .sh, and any
ancillary file or does your script already create the files?

> if the pathname reference failed, the entry looks like
>
>  CL-SOURCE-FILE         "file"
>   missing:              #P"/ebs/test/asdf-src/system1/module1/
> untyped-file.lisp"
>   configuration:        (#P"ASDFTEST:system1;"
> #P"ASDFTEST:system2;module4;" #P"/ebs/test/asdf-src/system1/module1/
> untyped-file")
>   parent pathnames:     (#P"ASDFTEST:system1;"
> #P"ASDFTEST:system2;module4;")
>
Does "missing" means that you tried that pathname in the end, and
failed? i.e. in that case, you were expecting a .lisp type, when
you're not providing one in an explicit pathname? We explicitly won't
merge any type when a pathname object is specified, so that the user
can override component-provided types.

>> Also, why do you map :unspecific to nil in merge-pathnames* ? What
>> issues does that solve? Isn't that against what we want?
>
> i changed it to pass no argument when no value is intended.
> on this topic clhs/make-pathname -> 19.2.1 lets you down.
> you need to attend to 19.3.2.1 [1], to which it appears lispworks
> pays attention.[2]
>
Ouch. I had missed this section. What about I change merge-pathnames*
to squash :unspecific if and only if the host is a logical host?

>> Shouldn't we
>> rather have split-name-type return type :unspecific more often? Maybe
>> your function should compare namestrings instead of pathnames?
>
> the test does not explicitly "compare". it create the files, then
> uses the component pathnames to try to write to them (or just probe
> for directories), and then confirms that it found all the intended
> files by checking their modification times. at least, that is what it
> is supposed to do.
>
OK.

--#f
Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.