fahree at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 19:56:52 UTC 2019
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:32 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
> The more we discuss this, the more I think it's a solution in search of a problem. Just using the standard ASDF file-inclusion capabilities (that Faré shows in his email) seems sufficient to me, and also keeps a nice uniformity -- if you want the long description, you ask for it, and you know it's a string. It also imposes a cost in complexity with only a conjectural benefit (who would consume the new pathname designations, and which library authors and maintainers would supply it?). If users are offended by the excess number of bytes, the macro facility is available.
> I prefer not to give the yak any more facial hair!
To be clear, I am not advocating any change to the ASDF source code;
just a minor change to the ASDF documentation, to suggest users to use
a pathname as metadata to inform documentation extracters and browsers
to use a documentation file instead of large strings in the image.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
The probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the
possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an
extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master on a
slave plantation. — Frank H. Knight
More information about the asdf-devel