Faré wrote: >>> Actually, the asdf initialization routine could unconditionally >>> add the asdf tree to the path: either it's present or not, but it >>> doesn't hurt to try, >>> and so no need to export ASDF_DEVEL_SOURCE_REGISTRY, then. >> I'm not entirely sure about this. Here's my question: if someone is >> developing code in one of those modules, and wants to see if it messes >> up ASDF development, might they want to override this to point to >> private copies of some or all of the dependencies? In that case, maybe I >> should leave it around.... >> > Another option: leave it around, but have it default to the ASDF > source tree. Best of both worlds?
Yes, that's what I did. I just pushed a new version of experimental-submodules. If it looks good, I'll merge it into master and then we can see about merging it into minimakefile... > > As usual, I like being able to configure, but I like even more being > able to NOT configure. Agreed. This should achieve that objective, I hope. > >> This would also be a place to test your new quicker-loading option. >> > Certainly. OK, I'll look into that next. _______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
