Dear Robert, >> However, I have one question: what is the reason that these >> output translations are apparently not applied to the .asd >> files? The way I understand my output-translations, I have >> globally specified that all fasls are in an >> implementation-specific directory just below my source >> files. For me, .asd files are just source files, so why not >> place them where the other fasls are written?
> Not sure I fully understand. As you say, the .asd files are just > source files, and they are never compiled, so there is no need > to do any output translations for them. > I may not have fully followed the question.... concerning the .asd files, I use cl path/to/..asd in the REPL and both sbcl and acl try to find fasls for them. If there is no corresponding fasl, they write one. At present, I do an explicit (load #P"path/to/system.asd") to prevent Lisp from writing fasls. So, the question comes from a habit developed over the years: why aren't defsystem files trated the same way as source files, i.e., treated according to what is specified in asdf-output-translations.conf? Hopefully this explains a bit of the backgrond of my question. Further comments later. Kind regards, good weekend, Ernst [email protected] schreef op vr 20-05-2011 om 12:00 [-0700]: > Re: Tutorial ASDF(?) _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
