why is usocket.asd without an in-package or package qualifiers?

[Mark H. David]

Well, ASDF doc (here: https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf/The-defsystem-form.html) is not that clear about this. It shows an example .asd file, which does have an in-package, albeit to package asdf-user, and says of it:

The file starts with an in-package form for package asdf-user.  Quick
summary: just do this, because it helps make interactive development of
defsystem forms behave in the same was as when these forms are loaded by
ASDF. ... The in-package form will ensure that the system definition is
read the same as within ASDF when you load it interactively with
cl:load. However, we recommend that you load .asd files through function
asdf::load-asd rather than through cl:load, in which case this form is
unnecessary.

Don't mean to hijack usocket for ASDF complaints, but shouldn't asdf::load-
asd be exported?

Thanks, Mark


----- Original message -----
From: Zach Beane <xach at xach.com>
To: "Mark H. David" <mhd at yv.org>
Cc: usocket development <usocket-devel at common-lisp.net> Subject: Re: why
    is usocket.asd without an in-package or package qualifiers? Date:
    Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:54:36 -0400

ASDF establishes a particular environment when using asdf:find-system
and asdf:load-system that is not duplicated by a plain CL:LOAD. It has
always been this way. You cannot reliably use CL:LOAD to load a system
file and have things work.

Zach

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Mark H. David <mhd at yv.org> wrote:
> I notices there's no in-package or qualifiers present in usocket.asd.
>
So you have to, it seems, do (in-package :asdf) or similar before
loading this file.
>
Is there any good reason for this?  I was thinking of fixing this and
doing a pull request. Anyone against?
>
Thanks,
>
Mark
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/usocket-devel/attachments/20150616/148feabe/attachment.html>