On 26 May 2010 09:32, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.info> wrote: > Currently, the manual's discussion about logical pathnames states: > > "Moreover, the `asdf-output-translation' layer > will avoid trying to resolve and translate logical-pathnames, so you > can define yourself what translations you want to use with the logical > pathname facility." > > IIUC, since a-o-t does not handle logical pathnames, it's not so much > that you /can/ define the translations you want to use with the l-p > facility as that you /must/ define the translations, or your binaries > will go untranslated. > > Do I understand this correctly? If so, any objection to my > strengthening the wording here? I am making some minor tweaks to this > section, which I was just in because I was on irc the other day helping > Stellian and Raymond with some pathname issues in ASDF 2 compatibility. > Yes. If you're using logical pathnames to name your files, you should be using logical pathnames for any output translations, too.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] ...so this guy walks into a bar. "The usual, Mr. Descartes?" the barman asked. "I think not," Rene replied, and promptly disappeared. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
