On 2010-03-31, at 14:07 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:32 PM, james anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
a. put logical hosts on asdf's search path and unify the pathnames
for found system definitions with them.
Sorry, but from the paragraph that you wrote I do not follow
completely the logic of what it is achieved.
if the system is built with asdf, the initialize-instance operator
for systems can examine the system's pathname and the pathnames which
constitute the list bound to asdf:*central-registry*, determine if
there are any logical host definitions which subsume the respective
physical pathname, and use the respective logical pathname to
designate the system's definition file instead of the physical one
which was used to load it.
as they say in the rad world, "it's that easy!"
i actually use a more radical approach. one which searches the entire
logical host world, but that probably goes too far and can require
disambiguation.
In any case the sentence "put logical hosts on asdf's search path"
implies that ASDF has to be there for the pathnames to exist, while
I was advocating a mechanism that did not depend on a central
registry and, most of all, that did not depend on the user setting
up translations.
i simply don't understand your requirements. on one hand both with
and without asdf, but then it is objected, that a mechanism which
requires asdf does not work without it. please explain.
if the requirement is that exact same exact formulation be used with
and without asdf, then
a) the additional system initialization argument is excluded
b) the second option in my earlier message provides this path.
_______________________________________________
asdf-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
