On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -11:55 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Tobias C. Rittweiler <t...@freebits.de > <mailto:t...@freebits.de>> wrote: > > There, however, seems to be an inherent dependency-vs-pureness problem > with user extensions as illustrated by cffi-grovel; from [1]: > > ;;; CFFI-Grovel is needed for processing grovel-file components > (cl:eval-when (:load-toplevel :execute) > (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op 'cffi-grovel)) > > (asdf:defsystem example-software > :depends-on (cffi) > :serial t > :components > ((:file "package") > (cffi-grovel:grovel-file "example-grovelling") > (:file "example"))) > > I know Stelian cursed about this in-persona, wishing for a reader which > has a notion of unresolved-symbols. > > > This can be cured with my suggestions plus some extensions I note below > > - Add a field :asdf-support to list dependencies for the system itself. > - Add a feature by which component types are registered with ASDF so > that they can be named using keywords
Are you sure you can't do this already? I'm looking at class-for-type, and it tries to look up the symbol-name of the component class name in the keyword package. Please check (I've got a big project today; sorry, I can't spare the time to test this). Cheers, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
