Faré wrote:
> 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.
IMO, there is no *perfect* solution to this problem, and the current
behavior is "as right as possible."
this just shows that the top-level use of :pathname (instead of using a
module) is problematic.
On the one hand, it's clear that the programmer doesn't want any files
to live in the top level of the system: the programmer wants the top
level to have only the asdf file and maybe some READMEs, and make them
more visible by pushing the sources into a subtree. According to this
argument, your interpretation is correct.
OTOH, what if you have a top level foo/ directory with the asdf system
definition and subdirectories src/ and data/? In that case, you want
ASDF:SYSTEM-RELATIVE-PATHNAME to be foo/ so that you have the choice of
going to src/ or data/.
In my opinion, what this disagreement shows is that top-level (i.e., at
DEFSYSTEM) use of :PATHNAME is to be deprecated.
If my system was
(defsystem foo
:components ((:module "src" ...)
(:module "data" ...)))
then the current behavior would be unambiguously correct.
I think what this shows is that using :pathname at the root of a system
definition is just wrong. Or, perhaps, that using :pathname at the root
of the system should be interpreted (i.e., its semantics should be
defined) "as if" it was defining an anonymous module (since that's what
happens -- the :pathname doesn't affect the location of the :defsystem).
I will wait for further discussion, but IMO, this is a WONTFIX.
Best,
r
--
Robert P. Goldman
Staff Scientist
Smart Information Flow Technologies (d/b/a SIFT, LLC)
319 1st Ave N., Suite 400
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Voice: (612) 326-3934
Email: rpgold...@sift.net
_______________________________________________
Asdf-devel mailing list
Asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
