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
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Tobias C. Rittweiler t...@freebits.dewrote:
There, however, seems to be an inherent dependency-vs-pureness problem
with user extensions as illustrated by cffi-grovel; from [1]:
;;; CFFI-Grovel is needed for processing grovel-file components
(cl:eval-when
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -11:55 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Tobias C. Rittweiler t...@freebits.de
mailto:t...@freebits.de wrote:
There, however, seems to be an inherent dependency-vs-pureness problem
with user extensions as illustrated by
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -11:55 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
- Add a field :asdf-support to list dependencies for the system itself.
- Add a feature by which component types are registered with ASDF so
that they can be named using keywords
Are you
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -9:16 PM, Daniel Herring wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/21/10 Mar 21 -11:55 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
- Add a field :asdf-support to list dependencies for the system itself.
- Add a feature by which component types are registered with ASDF so
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 *.asd files to do things like building
up packages, creating operations,
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off this time around, IMO.
Suggestion: if the group thinks this is a good idea, let's
1. Add a future plans section to the manual
2. Insert a write-up about this proposal in
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.infowrote:
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off this time around, IMO.
I agree that it is hard to get this right. However, would it be ok if I
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -4:31 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
I can see Juanjo's point, but I would like to suggest that we defer this
until ASDF 3; it's simply too much to bite off
On 18 March 2010 16:41, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
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
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -5:11 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com
mailto:fah...@gmail.com wrote:
What about instead investing in XCVB?
As much as I would like to have something simplify my life, it is not my
choice to use one system
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.infowrote:
Right. But do we have a clear understanding of what should and
shouldn't go in there? E.g.:
1. currently if you need an ASDF extension in order to make a defsystem
understandable [...]
2. New class and method
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.infowrote:
I'm reluctant to endorse this suggestion, because it means that we will
spawn YA information source to track. We'll have:
1. launchpad
I ignored ASDF was using this. I have submitted a wishlist ticket but I was
not
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, I think that supporting ASDF is important, but
ultimately an evolutionary dead-end.
That is hard to read from the project leaders. I feel rather neutral about
this and please do not feel offended by the following
On 18 March 2010 18:37, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, I think that supporting ASDF is important, but
ultimately an evolutionary dead-end.
That is hard to read from the project
On 3/18/10 Mar 18 -5:27 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info
mailto:rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
I'm reluctant to endorse this suggestion, because it means that we will
spawn YA information source to track. We'll have:
16 matches
Mail list logo
