Hi there!
Thanks to the ASDF maintainers. I just visited ASDF's website
on common-lisp.net since a long time, and it makes a nicely
maintained impression! Well done.
I have the following issues:
* The rather old ASDF version that I'm using (2.010) does
not seem to be able to cope with
In article 4fbe3bc7.7090...@sift.info,
Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
wrote:
On 5/24/12 May 24 -4:13 AM, Tobias C Rittweiler wrote:
Hi there!
Thanks to the ASDF maintainers. I just visited ASDF's website
on common-lisp.net since a long time, and it makes a nicely
maintained
What is the way to get a textual representation of
the plan of a system?
I would have thought that this is what ASDF:EXPLAIN
is for, but grepping through asdf.lisp did not make
me believe that's true.
Also, is there some fundamental reason why
(asdf:explain 'asdf:compile-op :system-name)
In article 1275145919.15345.10.ca...@seth-laptop,
Seth Burleigh s...@tewebs.com wrote:
Alright, so this is definitely a bug in something, it is reproducable
100% of the time on sbcl 1.0.38 on ubuntu 10.04
I compile celtk (from here http://github.com/kennytilton/celtk) and it
gives me a
In article
aanlkti=qxv-2mef5jqi=ozhk4w5zjhr=vlp+qaekk...@mail.gmail.com,
Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Tobias,
I personally think this weakly-depends-on is a horrible mess.
If you want FOO, require FOO. If you want FOO+READTABLE, require
FOO+READTABLE.
And so have two systems
In article
aanlkti=lvcys_bnuygnaffotsbsov857hzpjqhoma...@mail.gmail.com,
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Tobias C Rittweiler
t...@freebits.dewrote:
The parts you left out did not talk about reader conditionalization
In article
aanlktimqqsethhpugc7cda1wz_3q4uuxz5neqpkdb...@mail.gmail.com,
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Tobias C Rittweiler
t...@freebits.dewrote:
Now I'm wondering how good that solution is.
Bad. I already
Quite a few libraries come with reader hacks. They usually
come with a ENABLE-FOO-SYNTAX function. I'd like those
libraries to optionally depend on the named-readtables
library, and define a named readtable that includes their
hacks. So users can just use (IN-READTABLE FOO:SYNTAX)
on a per-file
Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
writes:
On 4/4/10 Apr 4 -9:50 PM, Faré wrote:
I would in order prefer the following:
1. disable output-translations by default.
I think we can't do that, because of things like system-installed source code
and users who use both clisp and ecl (that share
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll writes:
Now a couple of examples.
Suppose you have an ASDF system which is made of many sources with several
dependencies. I assume the system does not rely on other resources
(additional files, etc), but this could be extended.
If you want to build a single FASL
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
The manual already has a What has changed between ASDF 1 and ASDF 2?
section, with the following subsections:
@subsection ASDF can portably name files inside systems and components
@subsection Output translations
@subsection Source Registry Configuration
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com writes:
This is an idea that has been long floating in the back of my mind, and was
brought back to life by these comments
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/f99a69797eda1caf
The problem is that many people use
* README should say how to build the manual
* That said, how is the user supposed to build the manual?
There does not seem to be any rule for it in the Makefile.
* texipdf asdf.texinfo resulted in an error; an asdf.pdf was produced
nontheless. See PS for transcript.
* the manual should
Robert Goldman writes:
On 2/24/10 Feb 24 -5:54 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Although the way to extend operations by additional initargs is somewhat
cumbersome, it's possible. Unfortunately, the sugar forms LOAD-SYSTEM,
COMPILE-SYSTEM, and TEST-SYSTEM do not take additional initargs.
I
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
Thanks to Tobias for his several bug reports. I committed fixes to the issues,
building my own ensure-package (in a labels in cl-user, because we don't
have a package in which to do a defun yet).
There's another thing bugging me:
Could we add a PERFORM to
Christophe Rhodes writes:
Tobias C. Rittweiler t...@freebits.de writes:
I don't like that behaviour at all for the following reasons:
I do. (Not that I have a vote, but I think there is some value in
binary tools, which fail hard when things go wrong). Also possibly
relevant is the fact
Faré wrote
2009/12/21 Samium Gromoff
Fare,
Please consider the patch in the 'missing-definition' branch in
git://git.feelingofgreen.ru/asdf
Applied in my development repo, master branch:
http://common-lisp.net/project/xcvb/git/asdf.git
Candidate for immediate release, if no one
Thomas Bartscher writes:
Why are warnings of asdf put into *standard-output*?
Wouldn't it be easier to put those into something like *asdf-warnigs*? This
way
users of asdf could redirect those wherever they want.
That's a pet peeve of RPG, in fact. I suggest to log that feature
request at
(defun coerce-name (name)
(typecase name
(component (component-name name))
(symbol (string-downcase (symbol-name name)))
(string name)
(t (sysdef-error ~@invalid component designator ~A~@: name
I first thought this was some bad kludge to support modern-mode. But
vc-annotate
Robert Goldman writes:
[As an aside, I'm intrigued that you are using RT --- we gave up on it
eventually because it's state is all global, so that we were never
comfortable that stuff we set up to test in one system would not clash
with tests in other systems]
For my needs so far, I
Tobias C. Rittweiler writes:
I think GwKing uses automatically generated documentation for his
libraries. Gary, do you use some hook into ASDF for that?
In my experience, you always have to toggle a few switches for each
project (name, version number, download url, etc), and I'd like to have
This feature request is now logged as
https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/479478
-T.
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
Tobias C. Rittweiler t...@freebits.de
writes:
When I use :FORCE, in most cases I do want to recompile solely the
specified system, not all its dependencies.
In my ideal world, :FORCE T would recompile the specified system only,
and :FORCE :ALL would recompile it along its dependencies
I want to run a test suite on an implementation I'm not currently
working in. For example, TEST-OP could take an :IMPLEMENTATION argument
(with one possible value being :ALL to test all registered
implementations -- whatever registered means.)
Fare nicely collected sexps describing how to do
As far as I'm told (and that matches my experience), ASDF does not recompile
the current system if a dependent system changed, unless of course :FORCE T
is specified.
This is logged as
https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/479522
-T.
___
Robert Goldman writes:
Fare wrote:
Do we need a :after method to restore the old settings? I'm not sure
how to do that actually, since I don't believe there's a portable way to
record them. Do you have thoughts about this?
(rpg replied to me in private but I'm Cc'ing back the
Faré writes:
Gary obviously doesn't have enough time to maintain ASDF and commit
(or reject) patches as fast as they come.
Which patches? Hasn't it so far been mostly fluff talk, no action?
-T.
___
asdf-devel mailing list
I think GwKing uses automatically generated documentation for his
libraries. Gary, do you use some hook into ASDF for that?
In my experience, you always have to toggle a few switches for each
project (name, version number, download url, etc), and I'd like to have
a general interface that hides
Robert Goldman writes:
2. Returning a single operation isn't enough, is it? For example, if I
have system X, with sub-systems A, B, and C, I may be testing A, B, and
C, so my traversal would have to gather up the three subsidiary test-op
entities and either package them into the parent
Robert Goldman writes:
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
Robert Goldman writes:
2. Returning a single operation isn't enough, is it? For example, if I
have system X, with sub-systems A, B, and C, I may be testing A, B, and
C, so my traversal would have to gather up the three subsidiary test-op
Visiting an .asd file and using C-c C-k to compile-and-load would make
the system properly available in past.
This does not seem to work since a few revisions. It now tries to load
the files specified in the system relative to the current working
directory.
When I C-c C-l, that is just load
Tobias C. Rittweiler writes:
When I use :FORCE, in most cases I do want to recompile solely the
specified system, not all its dependencies.
In my ideal world, :FORCE T would recompile the specified system only,
and :FORCE :ALL would recompile it along its dependencies.
Of course
I hate that I have to push a commonly shared directory onto
*central-registry* for each implementation and thus have to know the
rc files of every implementation.
(I was recently bidden by some classic rm -rf ~, and had to redo all
these kinds of infrastructure woes.)
Would anyone mind ASDF
Richard M Kreuter writes:
Tobias C. Rittweiler writes:
I think it's bitten pretty much all of us that we at least once tried to
push a non-directory-designating filename to *CENTRAL-REGISTRY*.
It's a common pitfalls for newcomers.
Couldn't ASDF signal a warning when it encounters
34 matches
Mail list logo
