[asdf-devel] Tutorial ASDF(?)

[Robert P. Goldman]

I don't think this would be the right thing. This package would turn into a conduit that would carry side effects between different system definition files. Better to stick with the status quo, I believe.
Best,
R
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

"Faré" <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Historical reasons: .asd files are meant to only contain simple stuff, > > Not that this really matters, but ... this is not so. > > .asd files have always been meant to contains things like custom > component definitions and defmethods for them -- not "just simple > stuff". Historically speaking compiling .asd files used to work fine, > assuming they set up their packages right -- which is one of the major > reasons for the > > (defpackage :foo-system ...) > > (in-package :foo-system) > > (defsystem :foo ...) > > pattern one sometimes sees. Not sure if it is still expected to work. > It is still expected to work, and it is actually recommended if you're defining any ASDF extension: classes, methods, even just functions, that may have to be redefined, debugged, traced, or otherwise named. I wonder if ASDF shouldn't just define a ASDF-USER package that uses ASDF and CL, instead of creating temporary packages every time. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau
•Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org "Ask not what the government can do for you. Ask what the government is doing to you." — David Friedman, "The Machinery of Freedom", p. 21_____________________________________________
asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel at common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20110521/04f482de/attachment.html>