On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info>wrote:
> Right. But do we have a clear understanding of what should and > shouldn't go in there? E.g.: > 1. currently if you need an ASDF extension in order to make a defsystem > understandable [...] > 2. New class and method definitions. We don't have a good way to put > them anywhere /but/ the .asd file for now. > > I see the point about good coding practice, but I feel weird about > telling people to use good coding practice at the same time telling them > they have to use bad (non-declarative) coding practice, because there's > no alternative! > > Can you say more about what you'd like to do specifically? I don't want > to discourage you from providing support for the sad lot of ASDF system > definers ;-)! > Please understand that I did not intend to prevent people from writing their own system or operation classes. That would go against my own practice :-) If you read my email, it is for this reason that I explicitely added an :asdf-support file option, where ASDF extensions should be coded. The problem, as I said, it is not extensions per se because they are needed to build the system. The problem is when people beging coding additional stuff -- I mentioned packages, but I have found classes, functions and other things that are not related to ASDF but are actually used by the code that the ASDF system is describing. Juanjo -- Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain) http://tream.dreamhosters.com
_______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
