On 22 April 2011 09:52, Zach Beane <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI, the recent updates removing and reinstating > ASDF:SYSTEM-DEFINITION-PATHNAME broke my dist construction machinery, > which relied on the original behavior of that function. > How did you rely on that function? It doesn't always make sense, for instance with runtime-computed of "fallback" systems that are not backed by a .asd file.
If needed, I could possibly split find-system into subfunctions, but you'd have to deal with more than just pathnames. > Switching to > ASDF:SYSTEM-SOURCE-FILE caused subtle problems for me, because functions > in ASDF:*SYSTEM-DEFINITION-SEARCH-FUNCTIONS* must now return actual > pathname objects, and pathname designators like strings do not suffice. > (They result in a component-not-found error.) > What about returning a pathname instead of a string? Alternatively I could add a clause to that cond in find-system: ((stringp found) (parse-namestring found)) In other words, I'm eager to improve ASDF to make it more suitable to your purposes, but I require more precise feedback as to what to do. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] Statism is the secular version of salvation through faith: it doesn't matter what bureaucrats do, only that they do it with good intentions. _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
