From: Samium Gromoff <_deepf...@feelingofgreen.ru>
> From: "Tobias C. Rittweiler" <t...@freebits.de>
>> Faré writes:
>>
>>> > > --- old-split-sequence/split-sequence.lisp 2009-10-22
>>> > > 20:10:35.110170150 -0400
>>> > > +++ new-split-sequence/split-sequence.lisp 2009-10-22
>>> > > 20:10:35.114171499 -0400
>>> > > @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@
>>> > > ;;; * (split-sequence #\; ";oo;bar;ba;" :start 1 :end 9)
>>> > > ;;; -> ("oo" "bar" "b"), 9
>>> > >
>>> > > +#+xcvb (module ())
>>> > > +
>>> >
>>> > This is... no. Please find some way of not infesting code with
>>> > build-related metainformation.
>>> >
>>> OK, I'll put this much-requested feature near the top of my TODO list.
>>
>> If every .lisp file has to begin with such an expression, can't you
>> simply introduce a file-as-module defaulting scope?
>
> Where would the inter-file dependencies go, then?
>
> Let's suppose you implied that the module form would be specified if only
> there actually are any dependencies to speak of.
>
> This implies that you have to use heuristics while interpreting the
> first form -- is it in the (module (&key &allow-other-keys)) form or not.
>
> Is this acceptable to Faré?
Moreover, the share of leaf modules is only meaningful in simple systems,
I believe -- you won't save much in the general case.
So, why bother?
> regards,
> Samium Gromoff
> --
> _deepfire-at-feelingofgreen.ru
> O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
_______________________________________________
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
