On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 16:07 -0500, Faré wrote: > I'm OK with declaring DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON a failure, and load-system > (or load-systems) the official way to go. But > > 1- This of course requires heads up, updating all users before > retiring the feature, etc. From my experience, if you start seriously > deprecating today and sending patches to all authors who use it in > quicklisp, you can expect to be removing that part of the code in two > years or so. > > 2- To make these dependencies work properly still requires modifying > ASDF to add explicit plan nodes for loading ASD files, that will > contain the systems loaded by load-system. The same trick will also > automatically make the :defsystem-depends-on work, since it itself > calls load-system. > > 3- Yes, defining things in the ASDF package is ugly, but extensions > are few enough, and using a prefix is a good enough namespace > management strategy. Not the most horrible thing that working with CL > does to you.
Please don't. It's a net improvement compared to the previous situation. It's easy to simply name your class with a keyword :package/foo-file. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
