>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Eric Timmons <etimm...@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> + When I'm trying to distribute my system with a non-monolithic
>>> operation. E.g. `(asdf:perform 'asdf:concatenate-source-op
>>> :some-package-inferred-system) results in only the files explicitly
>>> declared in the system's :components option being concatenated.
>>> (Similar things happen with compile-bundle-op).
>>> + `(asdf:load-system :some-package-inferred-system :force t)` results
>>> in only the files explicitly declared in the system's :components
>>> option being reloaded.
>>> I was planning to write my own system class to address these issues,
>>> but figured I should see if this is even intended behavior before
>>> doing that =).
> Apologies for letting this languish for so long. Real life and work
> consumed all my cycles for a while.
> I'm happy to work on this. Before getting started though, I'd like to
> get some more feedback on what the default behavior should be. It
> seems odd that if someone else wants to bundle my system they need to
> know that it's a package-inferred-system and pass the correct keyword
> arguments to OPERATE. I think the principle of least surprise would
> dictate that bundling a package-inferred-system :a would bundle all of
> its inferred children as well since that's presumably what the
> developer intended (I can't think of a great reason to bundle just the
> parent). A corner case here though is what if :a/b is passed to the
> bundle op by the user. If :a/b isn't a top-level system should the
> default be to bundle just :a/b, :a/b and :a/b/*, or :a and :a/* ? I
> don't have a good answer there.
> Admittedly, I can't really make the same argument about `:force t`
> when using LOAD-SYSTEM, because presumably if you're reloading
> something you're hacking on it and should know that it's a
> package-inferred-system. However, the part of me that loves symmetry
> thinks reloading :a and :a/* is the right thing to do and that the new
> value accepted for :force would stop that behavior.
first, I'd prefer it if you would write the .script that tests the
feature, check that it fails with the current ASDF, and build
consensus with the maintainers that the change is the right thing to
For force and force-not, it would be a matter of using
primary-system-name rather than coerce-name in the correct few places
in plan.lisp, notably function action-override-p.
For non-monolithic bundling, that's harder, because that means we
can't filter by component type like we do in filtered-sequential-plan,
but must instead check the primary-system-name of the systems or the
components you depend on.
However, it's not obvious at all what is the Right Thing(tm) regarding
bundling package-inferred-systems. What if I write three libraries and
two applications all in the same package-inferred-system hierarchy?
When I try to bundle them, should I get one bundle per file (which is
not very bundly)? Or one bundle for everything that one file depends
on under the same hierarchy (then there will be a lot of overlap
between those bundles)? Or somehow be able to specify where "this
bundle" stops? How?
You should probably be thinking about a coherent interface and
specification of what should be done, before you start coding. Coding
will be the easy part.
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
"Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman
she meets and then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again."
— TV listing for the Wizard of Oz in the Marin Independent Journal