A modest proposition: DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON should die [was Re: What's the right way to extend ASDF with new symbols?]

[Stelian Ionescu]

On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 16:07 -0500, Faré wrote:
> I'm OK with declaring DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON a failure, and load-system
> (or load-systems) the official way to go. But
> 
> 1- This of course requires heads up, updating all users before
> retiring the feature, etc. From my experience, if you start seriously
> deprecating today and sending patches to all authors who use it in
> quicklisp, you can expect to be removing that part of the code in two
> years or so.
> 
> 2- To make these dependencies work properly still requires modifying
> ASDF to add explicit plan nodes for loading ASD files, that will
> contain the systems loaded by load-system. The same trick will also
> automatically make the :defsystem-depends-on work, since it itself
> calls load-system.
> 
> 3- Yes, defining things in the ASDF package is ugly, but extensions
> are few enough, and using a prefix is a good enough namespace
> management strategy. Not the most horrible thing that working with CL
> does to you.

Please don't. It's a net improvement compared to the previous situation.
It's easy to simply name your class with a keyword :package/foo-file.

-- 
Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20160212/3fb2f2e7/attachment.sig>