[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
On 28 May 2011 14:50, Pascal Costanza <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23 May 2011, at 00:17, Faré wrote: > >>> The setup is not that hard. Here is what I have in my .sbclrc >>> >>> (setf (logical-pathname-translations "costanza") >>> `(("**;*.fasl.*" ,(format nil "/Users/costanza/.cache/common-lisp/~A >>> ~A/**/*.fasl" >>> (lisp-implementation-type) >>> (lisp-implementation-version))) >>> ("**;*.*.*" "/Users/costanza/**/*.*"))) >>> >>> This is all that is necessary, and it looks pretty much the same for all CL >>> implementations. This can probably very easily be abstracted to make it >>> even easier to set up. >>> >> But ASDF can't require each and every user to learn about >> logical pathnames and how to set them up in their specific implementation, >> each and every system writer to adhere to naming limitations of >> "logical pathnames", etc. That would raise the bar to adoption, not lower it. > > This is only true under the assumption that what ASDF 2 adds on top of ASDF 1 > is easy to learn, but that's not the case either. > >>> I don't have anything against the support for Unix-style pathnames, >>> but I don't think that ASDF is the right place to define them. >>> >> We needed *some* syntax for relative pathnames, to allow things like >> (:module "baz/quux" :components ((:file "foo/bar-V1.200"))) >> And considering their limitations, logical pathnames didn't cut it. > [...] > >> Please explain what you want to separate from ASDF, and how you propose >> users of ASDF to portably specify relative pathnames. >> >> In the bad old days of ASDF 1, I've done my lot of >> (:module "foo-bar" :pathname >> #.(merge-pathnames (make-pathname :directory '(:relative "foo" "bar") >> :defaults *some-directory* #| required for the :host and :device slots >> |#) *some-directory*) ...) >> >> NO, THANKS! Now it's just (:module "foo/bar" ...) > > Why was that necessary? It was possible to say (:module "foo" (:module "bar" > ...) ...) [or something similar], no? > >>> I know this is all difficult to set up and requires a lot of time and >>> energy, so I also understand why you may not want to go the extra mile to >>> work on such a separation. >>> >> Since you seem to be the only one here with a clue what you mean, >> why don't you come with a proposal and/or a patch? > > Well, as a minimum, I have two requests to make changes in the documentation: > > - In Section 3.1, the documentation says the following: "The simplest way to > add a path to your search path, say /home/luser/.asd-link-farm/ is to create > the directory ~/.config/common-lisp/source-registry.conf.d/ and there create > a file with any name of your choice but the type conf, for instance > 42-asd-link-farm.conf containing the line: (:directory > "/home/luser/.asd-link-farm/")" > > This is very confusing, because the "old style" using asdf:*central-registry* > is decidedly much simpler. So the sentence above needs some explanation in > what sense the "new style" is simpler. > > > - Section 5.3.6 should be renamed. The main body of the text is about how to > use logical pathnames with ASDF 2, and is not a "warning." The recommendation > not to use logical pathnames should also be removed, because it is not > substantiated (and is therefore not a "warning," because it doesn't say what > the potentially bad effects of using logical pathnames are). > > There are advantages and disadvantages with using both either logical > pathnames or the ASDF 2 approach. Any future Common Lisp implementation that > claims adherence to ANSI CL will support logical pathnames, and so it will be > relatively straightforward to use logical pathnames in conjunction with ASDF > 2, while ASDF 2 will probably need patching in order to support such a future > Common Lisp system, which can be regarded as an advantage of logical > pathnames over the ASDF 2 approach. > > I think that statements of personal preference should not have a place in the > documentation of a tool that is supposed to be used by the whole Common Lisp > community, but such a documentation should rather reflect the wide range of > opinions in that community. > > > Pascal > > -- > Pascal Costanza > The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer. > > > > _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
