On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Mark Evenson <even...@panix.com> wrote: > On 4/1/17 06:27, Faré wrote: >> I've started an ASDF Best Practices document as a response to all the >> ugly stuff I saw while debugging backward incompatibilities introduced >> by ASDF 3.3. It is currently in my plan branch: >> >> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/asdf/asdf/blob/plan/doc/best_practices.md > > Very cool, and a needed resource to get some idea of the state of Faré's > brain. > > One thing I learned from reading this document is that my use of symbols > to name and refer to ASDF systems is probably wrong, as it contradicts > the best practice of using strings for system identity. I like using > symbols because > > (asdf:defsystem democracry > :depends-on (civil-society press/freedom) > … > > looks much less cluttered than > > (asdf:defsystem "capitalism" > :depends-on ("profit/increasing" "internal-contradictions") > … > > While I can see problems stemming from what package the "democracry" > symbol gets interned within, I assume that ASDF:DEFSYSTEM goes to great > lengths to ensure that it is processed in a reasonable manner to guard > against such problems, therefore system designators as symbols should be > more or less the same as system designators as strings. Using strings > as system designators seems to work fine with asdf-3.2.0. > > Just to be clear, could someone please illuminate my understanding here > a bit: why are strings a better practice than symbols here? > Symbols work fine. It's just that they are not *canonical*; so it's not obviously clear that underneath, ASDF them will reduce them to a lower-case string; or that :SRc srC and "src" are the same thing. The consing and interning saved by using strings is probably minor in comparison.
It's a style issues. Others may disagree with my rule. That's a shame, but as long as they have themselves a good set of principes, that's their problem.
