Faré wrote: >>>>> 1- I think we should proceed and add a default path anyway. >>>>> >>>> ~/cl/ and/or ~/common-lisp/ sound fine to me, and I've seen no one >>>>> >>>> complain about that. >>>>> >>>> You could make it ~/local/common-lisp/ if you're into larger paths. >> > >> > I think I will put "asdf" into the pathname, per our earlier discussion, >> > so that we don't step on pre-existing paths. >> > >> > ~/asdf-local-paths/ >> > >> > would work for me. >> > > I really don't like including asdf in the name, especially since other > tools than asdf exist and may exist in the future, and will want to > share the common-lisp source code hierarchy. > > ~/local/common-lisp/ has the advantage of being clutter-limiting, > XDG-like if not strictly XDG, clean, etc., and just one character > longer than your proposal.
I am less excited about the future and find it more appealing in terms of non-collision, to get "asdf" in the name. But I am willing to be overridden; my preference is weak. OTOH, I don't like ~/local/common-lisp/ because it seems to me that the "local" pathname component doesn't mean anything. Its XDG-likeness seems to me a hazard -- it can be confused with ".local" and has no corresponding advantage. Unless someone can convince me there's some useful tree to insert ourselves into, I think the default lisp code directory should be a direct subdirectory of ~, not an indirect one. Does anyone have an argument for not being at the root? > > ~/common-lisp/ is slightly more pretentious, but probably works, too. > > ~/cl/ is taking a lot of familiarity, and maybe I should keep it my > personal configuration rather than a recommended default. > These last two have been rejected by Pascal and others for what I feel are good reasons. Thanks, everyone! I believe this discussion is leading us to a better place.... r
