02.02.2013, 05:29, Faré fah...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Anton Vodonosov avodono...@yandex.ru wrote:
01.02.2013, 23:23, Faré fah...@gmail.com:
After discussion with people on #lisp and via private chat, I decided
to use a shorter name. Here is what was released in 2.27:
After discussion with people on #lisp and via private chat, I decided
to use a shorter name. Here is what was released in 2.27:
:long-name Another System Definition Facility
:homepage http://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/;
:bug-tracker https://launchpad.net/asdf/;
:mailto
Fare == Far Far writes:
Fare After discussion with people on #lisp and via private chat, I decided
Fare to use a shorter name. Here is what was released in 2.27:
Fare :long-name Another System Definition Facility
Fare :homepage http://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/;
Fare
Raymond Toy toy.raym...@gmail.com
writes:
Fare == Far Far writes:
Fare After discussion with people on #lisp and via private chat, I
decided
Fare to use a shorter name. Here is what was released in 2.27:
Fare :long-name Another System Definition Facility
Fare :homepage
01.02.2013, 23:23, Faré fah...@gmail.com:
After discussion with people on #lisp and via private chat, I decided
to use a shorter name. Here is what was released in 2.27:
:long-name Another System Definition Facility
:homepage http://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/;
:bug-tracker
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Anton Vodonosov avodono...@yandex.ru wrote:
01.02.2013, 23:23, Faré fah...@gmail.com:
After discussion with people on #lisp and via private chat, I decided
to use a shorter name. Here is what was released in 2.27:
:long-name Another System Definition
FWIW, here's the list of properties in LibCL before it died. An
incomplete readme is attached. A few fields were specific to LIBCL (most
belong in ASDF properties); I was bootstrapping this on the side out of
necessity. Hasn't a similar effort been started in Quicklisp?
(:name
:website
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
On the one hand, I am deprecating component-property in ASDF3,
Why? What will be the new mechanism for what component-property
provides?
Zach
___
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
On the one hand, I am deprecating component-property in ASDF3,
Why? What will be the new mechanism for what component-property
provides?
I propose that any data that component-property is actually used for
should be in appropriate slots of the system.
This
I'm still curious as to _why_ component property is going away, not (just) how
you think folks should work around its absence.
thanks,
Cyrus
On Jan 31, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Faré fah...@gmail.com wrote:
On the one hand, I am deprecating component-property in ASDF3,
Why? What will be the new
On the one hand, I am deprecating component-property in ASDF3,
Why? What will be the new mechanism for what component-property
provides?
I propose that any data that component-property is actually used for
should be in appropriate slots of the system.
This will introduce a new round of
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
On the one hand, I am deprecating component-property in ASDF3,
Why? What will be the new mechanism for what component-property
provides?
I propose that any data that component-property is actually used for
should be in appropriate slots of the system.
This
Synchronization is NOT necessary to add new slots.
If you want a new slot, just create a new class with that slot,
and use both :defsystem-depends-on and :class in your defsystem form.
This usage pattern wouldn't work on ASDF 1 or early ASDF 2, but
it works quite well since ASDF 2.016 from
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
Feel free to adopt this technique for your proposed website slot, so it
does not cause compatibility problems. Please do not remove other
techniques.
There is no compatibility problem whatsoever with adding optional slots.
I just tried, and got this:
Error
Feel free to adopt this technique for your proposed website slot, so it
does not cause compatibility problems. Please do not remove other
techniques.
There is no compatibility problem whatsoever with adding optional slots.
I just tried, and got this:
Error while trying to load
Faré fah...@gmail.com writes:
I haven't added the slots yet, so of course it won't work.
As for disabling properties on old versions of ASDF that don't
actually support them,
that's what #+asdf3 is for, just like #+asdf2 before it.
When it is time to add support for a bug-tracker-url slot,
I did an analysis of how system properties are used in Quicklisp systems,
and this suggests that the following initargs be added:
:website-url === widely requested. the URL suffix makes it less ambiguous.
:bug-tracker-url === Zach's request that makes a *whole* lot of sense
:development-email ===
In 2.26.174, I added the following initargs to system with system-FOO accessors.
I also added an :initform nil to all those optional metadata slots and
previous ones.
:long-name Another System Definition Facility
:website-url http://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/;
:bug-tracker-url
Dear Red,
as a follow up to my previous email, I eventually added in 2.26.174
the following initargs to defclass system, with system-FOO accessors.
:long-name Another System Definition Facility
:website-url http://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/;
:bug-tracker-url
(Replying in public to this private email; I hope this is not a faux-pas.)
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Daniel Herring dherr...@tentpost.com wrote:
:long-name Another System Definition Facility
:website-url http://common-lisp.net/projects/asdf/;
:bug-tracker-url
Fare On the other hand, now is a good time for me to add new slots to
system objects.
Fare I will add a website slot in 2.26.171, though you'll have to
Fare #+asdf3 :website #+asdf3 http://xxx; for now.
Does :website do anything other than record that info? If not, then
why
21 matches
Mail list logo
