On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Faré <fah...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If your index is just a lisp file,
> why do you even need to subclass cl-source-file, to begin with?
> And if you do, why do you need override any method or initform?
> Let the CL source files be compiled the normal way!

Yes, well, the only specific thing is to copy the .info file to the
place where the fasl goes, then it punts to whatever cl-source-file
says to do.

> As to locating the .info file, while not just use the recommended
> asdf:system-relative-pathname ?

Well, the info index is something that's used in non-ASDF contexts in
Maxima, and I didn't want to change it. I agree that
asdf:system-relative-pathname would be the right way to go, if I were
able to start over.

> NB: If you're that masochist, please contact me as I'm pushing for
> something broadly similar in gerbil-scheme's clan libraries;

Well, I do endure a lot of self-inflicted suffering, but unfortunately
I already have an unending to-do list for Maxima ...

>> (1) In the class definition for INFO-INDEX, it
>> seems to be necessary to intone (type :initform "lisp").
> This is not necessary. You are confused. See Robert Goldman's response.

Yup, I will revise the code in light of Robert's comments.

> However, note that this pattern is NOT currently in use
> in asdf/component.lisp or asdf/lisp-action.lisp -- yet.
> I would recommend that a future ASDF maintainer should in the future
> replace all current occurrences of static slots :initform with this style

I dunno -- I think I'm going to play it safe and use the old pattern,
if it's necessary at all ... I'm a pretty casual ASDF user, I don't
know if I can invest the time to figure the old vs new stuff.

All the best,
Robert Dodier

Reply via email to