On 2010-03-30, at 19:12 , Robert Goldman wrote: > On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:52 AM, james anderson wrote: >> >> On 2010-03-30, at 16:25 , Robert Goldman wrote: >> >>> On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -5:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: >>>> [...] >>> >>> Question: are we going to create a logical pathname translation for >>> just the system sources? Or should we create also something like >>> >>> CL-PPCRE;FASLS;*.*.* >> >> if asdf decides to befried logical pathnames, it should allow the >> system to define its own mapping. >> >>> >>> in addition? This seems a little tricky, since it requires that we >>> hook >>> into the output name rewriting logic, but probably is The Right >>> Thing. >> >> i had understood that the name rewriting logic is disabled for >> logical pathnames. >> which is as it should be. > > Clarification: the name-rewriting logic would still be disabled for > logical pathnames. What I was suggesting was that > > <SYSTEM-NAME>:FASL; > > should be a logical pathname that would point to the location where > <SYSTEM-NAME>'s (direct) fasls would be written by Faré's name > rewriting. > > I.e., this would be a way for the system to find its own fasls > reliably, > no matter what the output name rewriting does. > > Is that more clear?
yes and no. if one wants to map binary files differently that source files, the present (last i looked) asdf behavior was adequate. the last i looked, my binaries were at the specified locations. my experience[1] is that it works better if the pattern matches on the file type. given the proper mapping one neither needs nor wants any asdf internal mapping. --- [1] : http://github.com/lisp/de.setf.utility/blob/master/ pathnames.lisp#L119 _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
