Whoops. Forgot to reply-all (different mailing lists have different
policies...).
R
--- Begin Message ---
I still don't see why using logical pathnames for this -- especially a
non-ANSI logical pathname facility -- is prima facie a better solution than
Gary's ABL, which is ANSI, is fully implemented and thoroughly tested.
I think I am missing something in your argument here, because it seems to
rest on the feeling that a logical pathname solution is somehow inherently
better. I just don't see this. Can you unpack this argument a bit more?
Thanks,
r
___
Robert P. Goldman
Principal Scientist, SIFT, LLC
www.sift.info
...... Original Message .......
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:15:52 +0200 "james anderson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>On 2009-09-09, at 17:54 , Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> james anderson wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> 2. Logical pathnames are defined in ANSI CL to use case-flattened
>>>> pathnames. That means they are an extremely poor fit for modern
>>>> case-sensitive file systems. Some number of existing ASDF systems
>>>> would
>>>> break because their directory structures contain case-sensitive
>>>> pathnames. From the Hyperspec grammar for logical pathname
>>>> namestrings
>>>> (section 19.3.1):
>>>>
>>>> "word---one or more uppercase letters, digits, and hyphens."
>>>>
>>>> As long as SBCL hews to the letter of the ANSI spec for logical
>>>> pathnames, I regard logical pathnames as useless in portable
>>>> code. I
>>>> now use them only in code that, for one reason or another, will
>>>> only run
>>>> in ACL. [Note that this is /not/ meant as a criticism of the SBCL
>>>> policy.]
>>>
>>> is it perhaps time to deal with this as a community, rather that each
>>> asserting that they know better?
>>
>> Probably, but I don't think we should wait to get the function that
>> A-B-L provides until we have fixed logical pathnames. At the
>> expense of
>> being flip, that's like saying "we'll wait until the Messiah comes."
>> Especially given how many years the community has been saying "what
>> comes after the ANSI standard?"
>
>there are now at least two re-implementations of (at least some
>aspects of) logical pathnames: a-b-l and fare's. in each case,
>because of the belief, that the language offered no alternative. i
>suggest that it is not only flip, but short-sighted, to exaggerate
>any impediments so as to render the problem unassailable.
>
>has anyone ever tried to specify a form of logical pathname which
>would suffice for their use cases. are the only real issues the case-
>folding and the word constituents? i ask, as i've found that, exactly
>by observing those limitations, recent runtime implementations are
>sufficiently consistent to portably define logical hosts for use with
>asdf.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>asdf-devel mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
asdf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
