On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ralf Mattes <r...@mh-freiburg.de> wrote: > > Hello list, > > I just stumbled overthe following strangeness [1]: > > I've some code in directory foo that contains two asdf files, foo.asd > and foo-test.asd, the later contains the following definition: > > (defsystem "foo-test" > :version "0.1" > :pathname "t" > :serial t > ..... ) > > Now, if I evaluate > > (asdf:system-relative-pathname :foo-test "baz" :type "rsc") > > I get a pathname relative to the _asdf-file_, while evaluating: > > (merge-pathnames "baz.rsc" (slot-value (asdf:find-system :foo-test) > 'asdf::absolute-pathname)) > > yields the correct/expected pathname (i.e. one that honors the pathname > spec. of the asdf system). > > Is this really intended behavior or just an oversight? > > Cheers, Ralf Mattes > > Footnotes: > [1] in the sense of not following the principle o fleast astonishment > To put it in more "canonical" terms, the issue is that
(asdf:system-source-directory (asdf:find-system "foo-test")) ;=> #p"/home/ralf/src/foo/" (asdf:component-pathname (asdf:find-system "foo-test")) ;=> #p"/home/ralf/src/foo/t/" Is it the right thing? Should system-relative-pathname use the latter rather than the former? I can't say. I don't want to think about these things anymore. The difference, if it persists, should be documented. —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org You don't have to like everything about me, but if you don't love me the way I am, it's not me you love, only some fantasy of yours. _______________________________________________ Asdf-devel mailing list Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
