[asdf-devel] Question about pathnames discussion in the manual
fare at tunes.org
Wed May 26 14:29:58 UTC 2010
On 26 May 2010 09:32, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> Currently, the manual's discussion about logical pathnames states:
> "Moreover, the `asdf-output-translation' layer
> will avoid trying to resolve and translate logical-pathnames, so you
> can define yourself what translations you want to use with the logical
> pathname facility."
> IIUC, since a-o-t does not handle logical pathnames, it's not so much
> that you /can/ define the translations you want to use with the l-p
> facility as that you /must/ define the translations, or your binaries
> will go untranslated.
> Do I understand this correctly? If so, any objection to my
> strengthening the wording here? I am making some minor tweaks to this
> section, which I was just in because I was on irc the other day helping
> Stellian and Raymond with some pathname issues in ASDF 2 compatibility.
Yes. If you're using logical pathnames to name your files, you should
be using logical pathnames for any output translations, too.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
...so this guy walks into a bar.
"The usual, Mr. Descartes?" the barman asked.
"I think not," Rene replied, and promptly disappeared.
More information about the asdf-devel