On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > Faré wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: >>> The :REQUIRE directive seems undocumented. >>> >>> Under what circumstances is it acceptable? >>> >> If I remember the intent and interpret the source code correctly, >> it is always acceptable, but highly non-portable, and is thus better >> guarded by a >> (:feature :sbcl (:require :sb-posix)) >> or >> (:feature :ecl (:require :sockets)) >> or some such. >> >> The result being that your component depends on a system that when >> loaded calls (require name). > > I see. We had done something like that, but by having a pseudo-system type > called REQUIRE-SYSTEM, and setting it up to use REQUIRE for (PERFORM LOAD-OP > SYSTEM).... > > I have a documentation patch that describes REQUIRE now. Should push it soon. > REQUIRE-SYSTEM is actually used underneath by the :REQUIRE syntax, unless the implementation provides the system through a regular ASDF system (which SBCL used to do until they took my ASDF3 patch).
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Judge and party — the ultimate nature of a monopoly government.
