[asdf-devel] Tutorial ASDF(?)

[Ernst van Waning]

Fare, Zach,

thank you for the comments.  As you might have guessed, I was totally
unaware of that.

Always having loaded systems the way I described, I have never
encountered a problem, adding immediately that I go to the directory
where the software is that I want to work on, after perhaps having
loaded some systems I regularly use in the same manner.  Working with
compiled .asd files never gave me a problem.

Can you give a reason for not compiling .asd files?  What are the
advantages of accessing .asd files only by means of asdf:find-system?  I
surely must have configured something very wrongly, here it takes a very
long time and chances are the system I am after will not be found...

Sorry for insisting, but can you tell me why exactly, i.e., the
advantages of (asdf:find-system <system.) and the disadvantages of mine?

Hoping to hear & kind regards,

Ernst

Faré schreef op vr 20-05-2011 om 16:47 [-0400]:
> On 20 May 2011 16:18, Zach Beane <xach at xach.com> wrote:
> >
> > .asd files should not be loaded directly with cl:load or any shortcut
> > that involves cl:load, like cl path/to/whatever.asd. ASDF sets up an
> > environment when loading an .asd file that is not the same as the
> > environment established by cl:load.
> >
> > The only way (with which I'm familiar) to properly load an .asd file is
> > via asdf:find-system.
> >
> Indeed.
> 
> In recent versions of ASDF, I have factored out of find-system
> an internal function
> 	(asdf::load-sysdef "/path/to/foo.asd")
> that does the right thing. But I haven't exported the function so far,
> because I believe you should only be loading them via find-system, which
> for the longest time had been the only interface to that functionality.
> You should certainly never compile-file a .asd file — though I've been
> known to C-c C-k some of them at the SLIME REPL and regret it later.
> 
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear.
> Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together.
> Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore
> these formalities as "empty", "meaningless", or "dishonest", and scorn to use
> them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into
> machinery that does not work too well at best.
>         — Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"
>