[asdf-devel] New ASDF maintainer sought

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>
>     On 9/22/10 Sep 22 -5:26 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
>     > * The bootstrapping code can be different for a shipped asdf
>     > (one that comes with the implementation) and for the asdf that
>     > is loaded by users.  This can be activated by an
>     > implementation by choosing whether to use defpackage.lisp or
>     > something else. Doing this with the monolithic asfd.lisp is a
>     > hell.
>   
>     Can you explain this?  I don't really get it.  Presumably any
>     implementation that wants to distribute ASDF can add its own
>     "after hooks" in its own private copy.  I'm clearly missing
>     something here...
>
> I am not only talking about hooks but about to-come features, such
> as dumping "executables", or creating monolithic fasl (a fasl made
> of multiple components). This can be done using separate files for
> each implementation, much like swank does, and requires
> implementation-dependent code which would be a nightmare to code via
> #+/#-. Same thing goes for the execution of commands via run-program
> or the like, or handling of configuration files -- to which
> implementations might wish to hook.

Perhaps a tool like shar, but preserving the loadability of the lisp
sources would be what you need to be able to work efficiently with the
asdf.lisp source:

http://git.informatimago.com/viewgit/index.php?a=viewblob&p=public/bin&h=f9d1d846ec9127fdbcd4c86837d66f827d2eb72d&hb=ce800092f0c3e22ec5af4f95b2c2079b3bebb0e4&f=clar

asdf.lisp could still be the main source, under DCVS and distributed
as a single file,  but to hack on it you could easily split it out in
its components:

    mkdir asdf 
    cd asdf
    clar ../asdf.lisp
    emacs compile-op.lisp  asdf-ecl.lisp
    clar ../asdf.lisp *.lisp


> No. Why? I mean, the separate components are bundled into a single
> asdf.lisp and this process is automated (make -f GNUmakefile
> asdf.lisp). There is no new testing burden. I am just advocating for
> some common sense in the ASDF codebase, organizing it in a readable
> and separated way.

This is an alternative, indeed.

asdf.lisp: $(ASDF_SOURCES)
	clar asdf.lisp $(ASDF_SOURCES)


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/