On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:58 AM, james anderson wrote: > > On 2010-03-30, at 16:42 , Robert Goldman wrote: > >> On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -9:29 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert Goldman <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Question: should we raise a style warning if the user supplies a >>> logical pathname that does not comply with the ANSI spec? I >>> would >>> prefer that we do that. >>> >>> >>> The first question is whether we are going to provide a logical >>> hostname >>> or whether instead we will allow the user to provide a full logical >>> pathname translation. That is >>> >>> :logical-host "CL-PPCRE" >>> >>> versus >>> >>> :logical-path "CL-PPCRE:MY-DESIRED;SET;OF;VIRTUAL;DIRECTORIES;*.*.*" >>> >>> The latter is trickier and proner to break. If we use the former >>> we can >>> provide two sets of translations > > it may be prone to break, but that just means one must pay attention. > > it would be ok if, given just the host name, asdf were to assert > translations which are the equivalent of the current binary mappings. > if the argument is a translation specification, there is no reason > not to believe it and apply it as given. > >> >> I agree. In particular, I have vague memories of differences between >> ACL and SBCL on how to handle the *.*.* versus *.*, but this is >> lost in >> my neural network. > > my experience is that it depends entirely on whether the runtime > supports versions at all. > if one intended a logical host translation spec to behave "the same" > on a runtime which supports file versions as on one which does not, > one has to express the respective mappings correctly.
I believe that is correct. I think that on at least one of these platforms, it is customary to rewrite "**;*.*.*" to "**/*.*" to ensure that the version field is thrown away. best, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
