> 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 will do this. >> >> 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. This is done. >> >> > > 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 > -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
