On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > > Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but that solution is unacceptable > to me. From my POV as maintainer, it seems like the worst of all > worlds. We would be introducing yet more moving parts -- a new package, > ASDF-EXTENSIONS, that we would have to keep track of -- without solving > the problem of name collisions. This seems strictly worse than the > status quo. > > If someone wants to *fix* the double-parsing solution, that's fine. But > I'm not going to keep around the broken double-parsing solution.
Would there be anything wrong with saying everyone should use strings to name symbols from ASDF extensions? Component types and :class already seem to support this. A quick glance through the code makes me think :in-order-to and inline methods would be fairly easy to modify to support it as well. I'd be happy to send in a patch for it. It seems this would solve the issue with namespace clashes and get rid of the need for load-systems before the defsystem. There's still a lot of work if someone wants a completely declarative version of defsystem, but at least it's a step in that direction. -Eric
