Yes, supported: Having #p"foo.asd" define systems "foo/test", "foo/bar", "foo/baz" in addition to "foo". ASDF can even find them if you (asdf:make :foo/test) without having loaded foo first.
Unsupported: Having #p"foo.asd" define "foo-test", "bar", "foo-unparsable-mess_with.angry^#$*characters", etc. Please use secondary systems that are properly named. I <3 secondary/systems. The slash ensures ASDF can find your secondary systems. See https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/merge_requests/51 for the proposed change: issuing a WARNING (not an ERROR, so your builds won't break, and the warning does not happen within a COMPILE-FILE either). —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org Clairvoyant, n.: A person, commonly a woman, who has the power of seeing that which is invisible to her patron — namely, that he is a blockhead. — Ambrose Bierce On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: > I don't read fare's email as forbidding secondary systems, just those that > are misnamed. So I don't think he's proposing to remove features, just check > compliance with the naming convention. > > Maybe the proposal at hand is not described crisply enough. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Nov 18, 2016, at 07:58, Mark Evenson <even...@panix.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 18 Nov 2016, at 14:40, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Mark Evenson <even...@panix.com> wrote: >>>>> I'd like to forbid such misnamed systems. >>>>> Now a quick grepping through Quicklisp (see latest update to my ql-test) >>>>> finds 233 .asd files with such misnamed secondary systems. >>>>> Obviously it will take time to clean up the mess, >>>>> so for after the next release, I'd like to signal a full WARNING >>>>> when the condition is detected, and at some point, >>>>> make that a CERROR, then later an ERROR. >>>> >>>> I object on the grounds of widespread adoption. At least it will leave me >>>> on the current ASDF for a long time. >>> >>> What's wrong with issuing a WARNING until said adopting is down 95% ? >> >> I have a substantial use of secondary systems in my personal code that will >> take a long time to unwind. Since it was an advertised feature of ASDF3, I >> expect to be around for the lifetime of that version. >> >> As an implementor, I will patch ABCL’s ASDF3 to muffle such warnings, but to >> remove behavior without a bit longer warning to my user base seems >> unacceptable. >> >> Please put it in ASDF4. >> >> Sorry for being harsh, and terse, but if you are asking for opinions, I >> happen >> to have a strong one here. >> >> With respect, >> Mark >> >> >
