[asdf-devel] defsystem behaviour

[Robert Goldman]

On 9/13/10 Sep 13 -8:05 AM, Serhiy Yakovyn wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
>  
> 
> I have discovered defsystem names systems in a bit opposite way
> defpackage does:
> 
>  
> 
> (defsystem :some-system …) and (defsystem “some-system” …) define the
> same system, when (defsystem “SOME-SYSTEM” …) defines the other system.
> 
>  
> 
> In contradiction, (defpackage :some-package …) and (defpackage
> “SOME-PACKAGE” …) define the same package, when (defpackage
> “some-package” …) defines the other package.
> 
>  
> 
> Is this done intentionally?

Yes, this is done intentionally.  Canonical (i.e., what you get when you
translate a symbol) names for ASDF systems (and other ASDF components)
are downcased.

I /suspect/ (I am not privy to the intentions of the original developer)
that this is because the downcased names --- this policy is applied not
just to systems, but to other components as well --- map better to the
way people use modern file-systems.

E.g., we typically don't want

(:file "foo")

to map to "FOO.LISP" or "FOO.lisp"

Best,
r