[asdf-devel] Enforcing pure *.asd files

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info>wrote:

> Right.  But do we have a clear understanding of what should and
> shouldn't go in there?  E.g.:
> 1.  currently if you need an ASDF extension in order to make a defsystem
> understandable [...]
> 2.  New class and method definitions.  We don't have a good way to put
> them anywhere /but/ the .asd file for now.
>
> I see the point about good coding practice, but I feel weird about
> telling people to use good coding practice at the same time telling them
> they have to use bad (non-declarative) coding practice, because there's
> no alternative!
>
> Can you say more about what you'd like to do specifically?  I don't want
> to discourage you from providing support for the sad lot of ASDF system
> definers ;-)!
>

Please understand that I did not intend to prevent people from writing their
own system or operation classes. That would go against my own practice :-)
If you read my email, it is for this reason that I explicitely added an
:asdf-support file option, where ASDF extensions should be coded.

The problem, as I said, it is not extensions per se because they are needed
to build the system. The problem is when people beging coding additional
stuff -- I mentioned packages, but I have found classes, functions and other
things that are not related to ASDF but are actually used by the code that
the ASDF system is describing.

Juanjo

-- 
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://tream.dreamhosters.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20100318/cc33dd91/attachment.html>