[asdf-devel] Tutorial ASDF(?)

[Robert Goldman]

On 5/20/11 May 20 -3:11 PM, Ernst van Waning wrote:
> Dear Robert,
> 
>>> However, I have one question: what is the reason that these
>>> output translations are apparently not applied to the .asd
>>> files?  The way I understand my output-translations, I have
>>> globally specified that all fasls are in an
>>> implementation-specific directory just below my source
>>> files.  For me, .asd files are just source files, so why not
>>> place them where the other fasls are written?
> 
>> Not sure I fully understand.  As you say, the .asd files are just
>> source files, and they are never compiled, so there is no need
>> to do any output translations for them.
> 
>> I may not have fully followed the question....
> 
> concerning the .asd files, I use cl path/to/..asd in the REPL and both
> sbcl and acl try to find fasls for them.  If there is no corresponding
> fasl, they write one.
> 
> At present, I do an explicit (load #P"path/to/system.asd") to prevent
> Lisp from writing fasls.  So, the question comes from a habit developed
> over the years: why aren't defsystem files trated the same way as source
> files, i.e., treated according to what is specified in
> asdf-output-translations.conf?
> 
> Hopefully this explains a bit of the backgrond of my question.

Ah, yes, I *almost* think I get it.

If you do an explicit (load #P"path/to/system.asd") isn't that a request
to CL to load the source and *not* compile the .asd file?

In general, one should not compile .asd files at all.  They should be
loaded as source files, typically as a side-effect of asdf:load-system...

When I do (load "obtw.asd") in my obtw directory, ACL just loads the
.asd file; it does not generate and store a fasl.

So I'm still not /quite/ sure I see the issue.

best,
r