Misnamed secondary systems

[Faré]

Yes, supported: Having #p"foo.asd" define systems "foo/test",
"foo/bar", "foo/baz" in addition to "foo". ASDF can even find them if
you (asdf:make :foo/test) without having loaded foo first.

Unsupported: Having #p"foo.asd" define "foo-test", "bar",
"foo-unparsable-mess_with.angry^#$*characters", etc.

Please use secondary systems that are properly named. I <3
secondary/systems. The slash ensures ASDF can find your secondary
systems.

See https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/51 for the
proposed change: issuing a WARNING (not an ERROR, so your builds won't
break, and the warning does not happen within a COMPILE-FILE either).

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Clairvoyant, n.:
       A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that
which is invisible to her patron — namely, that he is a blockhead.
               — Ambrose Bierce


On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.net> wrote:
> I don't read fare's email as forbidding secondary systems, just those that are misnamed. So I don't think he's proposing to remove features, just check compliance with the naming convention.
>
> Maybe the proposal at hand is not described crisply enough.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Nov 18, 2016, at 07:58, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems.
>>>>> Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test)
>>>>> finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems.
>>>>> Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess,
>>>>> so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING
>>>>> when the condition is detected, and at some point,
>>>>> make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR.
>>>>
>>>> I object on the grounds of widespread adoption.  At least it will leave me on the current ASDF for a long time.
>>>
>>> What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ?
>>
>> I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will
>> take a long time to unwind.  Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I
>> expect to be around for the lifetime of that version.
>>
>> As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to
>> remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems
>> unacceptable.
>>
>> Please put it in ASDF4.
>>
>> Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I happen
>> to have a strong one here.
>>
>> With respect,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>