<html><head></head><body>I don't think this would be the right thing. This package would turn into a conduit that would carry side effects between different system definition files. Better to stick with the status quo, I believe.<br>
Best,<br>
R<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">"Faré" <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; ">>> Historical reasons: .asd files are meant to only contain simple stuff,
>
> Not that this really matters, but ... this is not so.
>
> .asd files have always been meant to contains things like custom
> component definitions and defmethods for them -- not "just simple
> stuff". Historically speaking compiling .asd files used to work fine,
> assuming they set up their packages right -- which is one of the major
> reasons for the
>
> (defpackage :foo-system ...)
>
> (in-package :foo-system)
>
> (defsystem :foo ...)
>
> pattern one sometimes sees. Not sure if it is still expected to work.
>
It is still expected to work, and it is actually recommended if you're defining any ASDF extension: classes, methods, even just functions, that may have to be redefined, debugged, traced, or otherwise named.
I wonder if ASDF shouldn't just define a ASDF-USER package that uses
ASDF and CL, instead of creating temporary packages every time.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• <a href="http://fare.tunes.org">http://fare.tunes.org</a>
"Ask not what the government can do for you. Ask what the government is doing to you." — David Friedman, "The Machinery of Freedom", p. 21<hr />asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
<a href="http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel">http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel</a>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>