long-description

[Faré]

>>: Faré
>: Robert Goldman

>> :long-description #p"README.md"
>
> Let me see if I understand clearly:
>
> As before, if you put a string in here, you get the string itself as the value of :long-description.
>
> If there is a pathname literal in here you get the contents of that file as the value of :long-description.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> I'm ok with this, but not so enthusiastic that I'll do it myself. I'd be happy to accept a pull request.
>
I was thinking even simpler: system-long-description returns whatever
you put in :long-description, whether a string or a pathname. But if
it's a pathname, whichever document-generating application (Quickdocs,
Declt, etc.) is responsible for looking at that file, interpreting it
according to its file extension and/or self-describing content, etc.
It isn't ASDF's responsibility to either read the file contents or
interpret them. You've been given the raw data, now you're on your
own.

> I'd also like some discussion about how this change would come into being. It's not especially backward compatible, but it should not cause breakage -- people using older versions of ASDF would just see a pathname in the unlikely event that they tried to retrieve the long-description.
>
> Can anyone else think of any unexpected consequences?
>
I don't believe anyone is currently using a pathname in that field, so
allowing a pathname and associating some semantics to it, whether
actively supported and enforced by ASDF or not, is sufficient. The
main burden would be to document the convention and convince a few key
players to adopt it (e.g. Eitarō, Didier, Eudoxia, and other
influencers).

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Q.  Why does "philosophy of consciousness/nature of reality"
    seem to interest you so much?
A.  Take away consciousness and reality and there's not much left.
        — Greg Egan, interview in Eidolon 15