[asdf-devel] :exclude in source-registry.conf getting ignored.

szergling senatorzergling at gmail.com
Fri May 14 09:06:56 UTC 2010

On 5/12/10, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree the exclude API is not very clean, sorry about that.
> If you have a better design to propose, I'm all ears.


I would if I could. :) While my original thoughts on this appear
simple at first, on further examination, I have become confused with a
couple of issues. Some suggestions and questions:

1. I think most hackers would expect that *default-exclusions* should
not be overridden if the user provides an :exclude directive.

(setf *default-exclusions* rest)

should be something like

(appendf *default-exclusions* rest)

2. What does it mean to inherit a configuration? Will exclusions be
shared? For example, suppose directory "/a/b/x/" is meant to be
excluded, and is specified in the user config file (which
:inherit-configuration). If the system config (being inherited, if I
understand correctly) specifies the tree "/a/b/", x/ (being a
subdirectory) will get re-included again.

3. At the risk of confusing the meaning of "inherit" with CLOS
inheritance, I was going to propose solving the "order of directive
specification" issue by pre-reading all config info into a first class
configuration object. This may facilitate inspecting/reasoning over
them as well as supporting more direct interactions between

Thanks all I can think of for now...


> On 11 May 2010 04:37, szergling <senatorzergling at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi list,
>> Is it intended that :exclude in
>> ~/.config/common-lisp/source-registry.conf
>> should come before the :tree directive(s)[1]?
>> To me, the manual seems to specify that the order
>> in which the directives are provided does not matter.


More information about the asdf-devel mailing list