Gary King wrote: > I share Robert's queasiness and also think that we want ASDF to support > these sorts of dependencies (simple, weak, contingent, etc... (?)). > > I'm going to update the manual with James's table (thanks James!) in the > hopes of giving us a place to hang our collective hats. > >
That sounds like a good idea, modulo it would be great to put it in some new section like "TODO list" or "Missing bits in implementation." How about pushing my documentation of weakly-depends-on at the same time? Possibly with some warning that the implementation of this may change. Suggestion: instead of using a trick to get the square peg :weakly-depends on logic to sorta fit in the round-hole :depends-on slot, which forces us to (inappropriately, IMO) evaluate this stuff at macroexpansion time, I think we should suck it up and add extra slots for weak dependencies and contingent dependencies. Follow-on suggestion: we need to think about what happens when a component has all possible combinations of :depends-on, :weakly-depends-on, and :contingent-on. Does something that would not be loaded because of :contingent-on avoid a crash that would come from a violated :depends-on? Extra bonus follow-on: are these expected to be meaningful when the depended-on item is a system (clearly yes), a feature (seems handy), an arbitrary component (what would this mean?)? Best, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
