On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -1:48 PM, james anderson wrote: > > On 2010-03-30, at 20:36 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: > >> >> I think I know roughly what Juanjo means here. In particular: >> >> 1. I don't like to have my systems use the ASDF API internally. E.g., >> I will set up variables with pathnames, or use logical pathnames in my >> ASDF system definition files, so that my actual code doesn't have to use >> something like asdf:system-definition-pathname. >> >> 2. I have worked with people who don't use ASDF. If I observe >> strictures like the ones I lay out in point 1, then those people can >> write a simple load file that somehow initializes the logical pathnames >> and loads the code (how to do that is /their/ problem!) and then they >> can use my code just as I do. If I used calls like >> asdf:system-definition-pathname, that would not be possible. >> >> So I think Juanjo's objectives here (or at least my interpretation of >> his objectives!) are reasonable. >> >> You got it right. I would extend the argument but I have to leave. >> Perhaps tomorrow. > > ? > one can do that now. without any changes to asdf and without any purity > tests. > so, he must be thinking of something in addition. >
Can you explain how to do this? I typically have an ugly mess in my .asd files where I get *load-truename*, and then fuss with it to extract the directory pathname, etc. Juanjo's :logical-hostname ASDF extension seems very handy to me. My alternative involves a lot of repeated boilerplate code, and it's surprisingly fussy to extract that directory pathname.... best, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
