On 2010-03-16, at 04:32 , Faré wrote: >>> [ ... ] > >> It seems like either these pathnames are never subjected to >> MERGE-PATHNAMES, in which case we can just always return NIL, or they >> /are/ sometimes subjected to MERGE-PATHNAMES, in which case sometimes >> the use of NIL instead of :unspecific will cause oddities (unless the >> default type is always empty). >> > Using :UNSPECIFIC seemed like it might produce more robust code. > But now that I realize the unportability, I don't care as much. > > SBCL, CCL and LispWorks all pass janderson's tests just as well with > either NIL or :UNSPECIFIC. Haven't counted failures in other > implementations.
past experience with pathname portability led to the proposed patch to the pathname merge operator to construct a contingent argument list to make-pathname. where no component is to be specified, none is passed to make-pathname. if the context is such that one does not need to block a default component, that tactic should be sufficient. my recollection is that it worked for all tested implementations. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
