I don't think this would be the right thing. This package would turn into a conduit that would carry side effects between different system definition files. Better to stick with the status quo, I believe. Best, R -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
"Faré" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Historical reasons: .asd files are meant to only contain simple stuff, > > >> Not that this really matters, but ... this is not so. > > .asd files have >> always been meant to contains things like custom > component definitions and >> defmethods for them -- not "just simple > stuff". Historically speaking >> compiling .asd files used to work fine, > assuming they set up their >> packages right -- which is one of the major > reasons for the > > >> (defpackage :foo-system ...) > > (in-package :foo-system) > > (defsystem >> :foo ...) > > pattern one sometimes sees. Not sure if it is still expected >> to work. > It is still expected to work, and it is actually recommended if >> you're defining any ASDF extension: classes, methods, even just functions, >> that may have to be redefined, debugged, traced, or otherwise named. I >> wonder if ASDF shouldn't just define a ASDF-USER package that uses ASDF and >> CL, instead of creating temporary packages every time. —♯ƒ • François-René >> ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org "Ask not what the government can do for you. Ask what the government is doing to you." — David Friedman, "The Machinery of Freedom", p. 21_____________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
_______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
