On 9/13/10 Sep 13 -8:05 AM, Serhiy Yakovyn wrote: > Hello all, > > > > I have discovered defsystem names systems in a bit opposite way > defpackage does: > > > > (defsystem :some-system …) and (defsystem “some-system” …) define the > same system, when (defsystem “SOME-SYSTEM” …) defines the other system. > > > > In contradiction, (defpackage :some-package …) and (defpackage > “SOME-PACKAGE” …) define the same package, when (defpackage > “some-package” …) defines the other package. > > > > Is this done intentionally?
Yes, this is done intentionally. Canonical (i.e., what you get when you translate a symbol) names for ASDF systems (and other ASDF components) are downcased. I /suspect/ (I am not privy to the intentions of the original developer) that this is because the downcased names --- this policy is applied not just to systems, but to other components as well --- map better to the way people use modern file-systems. E.g., we typically don't want (:file "foo") to map to "FOO.LISP" or "FOO.lisp" Best, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
