On 2010-03-30, at 01:42 , Faré wrote: > One site per system looks like it will quickly pollute the host > namespace.
It depends on the use-case, as that determines the granularity one needs when re-mapping. While one could arrange the host mapping to each system independently, that would require machinery in addition to the standard logical pathname operators. I tend to work with a host for all libraries and one each for applications. > What about we instead use a single logical host with > subdirectories? > > #P"COMMON-LISP:SYSTEMS;CL-PPCRE;CL-PPCRE.ASD" In my case, that works out to #P"LIBRARY:de;weitz;cl-ppcre;cl-ppcre.asd" which is easy to accomplish when all sources are in one tree. > > The problem I have with this approach with logical pathnames at all is > that I don't understand whether or not mixed case and other characters > are allowed at all. I do not recall that the pathname tests revealed any inconsistency among implementations which, in itself, would argue against their wider use. > They clearly aren't portably printable if they're > allowed, but I suppose that's an OK limitation. In any case, if > logical pathnames with names including mixed cases, dots, dashes and > underscores are not allowed at all, or there's at least one supported > implementation that will bork, I think it's a non-starter. dashes are allowed. underscores and dots are not handled consistently as they are not valid word constituents. the syntax restriction does mean that a project with non-conformant file names could not use such a feature were it to be added, but nothing in the suggestion implied that the argument would be required. > > On the other hand, maybe it's time to have make an amendment to the CL > standard that will make LOGICAL-PATHNAMEs usable at long last. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
