[asdf-devel] 126.96.36.199 pushed: more checking of system names
fahree at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 15:26:11 UTC 2014
I'm not sure I like your latest restriction of system names to what
logical pathnames accept: one of the big pluses of not using logical
pathnames everywhere was to allow for a wider range of system names.
Consider the widely used cl+ssl, for instance.
At ITA, we also used to have module names like foo-V1.200, that are
not compatible at all with your plan of forcing logical pathname
compatibility — even less if converted to package-system where that
would become part of the name.
Logical pathnames are a horror that no one should use, and the
portability constraints of which should not be inflicted on everyone.
Could you revert this new constraint?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
You can only find happiness by striving towards something else.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> This is a repair of last night's commit. I added a test for the new
> system name checks, which had some fan-out -- I needed to fix
> DEF-TEST-SYSTEM to permit systems named with strings instead of symbols.
> Also, I check to make sure that all the system names, when being
> registered, are case-flattened down, and issue a continuable error if not.
More information about the asdf-devel