[asdf-devel] Re: Another grammar question

[Faré]

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> Faré wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
>>> The :REQUIRE directive seems undocumented.
>>>
>>> Under what circumstances is it acceptable?
>>>
>> If I remember the intent and interpret the source code correctly,
>> it is always acceptable, but highly non-portable, and is thus better
>> guarded by a
>> (:feature :sbcl (:require :sb-posix))
>> or
>> (:feature :ecl (:require :sockets))
>> or some such.
>>
>> The result being that your component depends on a system that when
>> loaded calls (require name).
>
> I see.  We had done something like that, but by having a pseudo-system type called REQUIRE-SYSTEM, and setting it up to use REQUIRE for (PERFORM LOAD-OP SYSTEM)....
>
> I have a documentation patch that describes REQUIRE now.  Should push it soon.
>
REQUIRE-SYSTEM is actually used underneath by the :REQUIRE syntax,
unless the implementation provides the system through a regular ASDF
system (which SBCL used to do until they took my ASDF3 patch).

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Judge and party — the ultimate nature of a monopoly government.