On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -11:16 PM, Faré wrote:
1. SPLIT-PATH-STRING is not an ideal name. SPLIT-PATH-STRING is /not/
used on paths, it is used on /names/ (in the ASDF sense of these terms).
An unwary reader of this code might try to apply it to a pathname (as I
originally thought), where it could
I am inclined to agree. I'd be happier if we could just say something like
(:file foo :relative-directory bar)
instead of
(:file bar/foo)
Why? You're just moving the complexity around,
without simplifying the overall design.
Moreover, the astute user is already familiar with /-separated
On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -10:02 AM, Faré wrote:
I am inclined to agree. I'd be happier if we could just say something like
(:file foo :relative-directory bar)
instead of
(:file bar/foo)
Why? You're just moving the complexity around,
without simplifying the overall design.
Moreover, the astute
On 22 February 2010 11:25, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -10:02 AM, Faré wrote:
I am inclined to agree. I'd be happier if we could just say something like
(:file foo :relative-directory bar)
instead of
(:file bar/foo)
Why? You're just moving the complexity
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -2:19 PM, Faré wrote:
2. SPLIT-PATH-STRING --- this is the one I think might need a ticket.
I confess I'm bamboozled by this one. It's called on (component-name
component), not on a pathname. Can you explain why the COMPONENT-NAME
would end up being a string that looks
On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -6:35 PM, james anderson wrote:
a question:
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -2:19 PM, Faré wrote:
2. SPLIT-PATH-STRING --- this is the one I think might need a
ticket.
I confess I'm bamboozled by this one. It's called on (component-
name
component), not on a pathname. Can you
why is this better than to leave names atomic and provide a standard
syntax to parse component relative (sic) pathnames?
Note that my whole last email is a red herring wrt this question. My
last email assumes that Fare's change stays in, and I'm trying to write
it up in the documentation.
1. SPLIT-PATH-STRING is not an ideal name. SPLIT-PATH-STRING is /not/
used on paths, it is used on /names/ (in the ASDF sense of these terms).
An unwary reader of this code might try to apply it to a pathname (as I
originally thought), where it could cause lossage because S-P-S doesn't
good morning;
if a system definition root pathname contains a logical host,
component-relative-pathname fails to produce pathnames which are
relative in the sense that the combination with their parent's
component pathname produces the intended location. this patch
corrects that failing
Your fix pushed to 1.622. Oops, this is totally my fault, I kind of
remember removing a similar binding from an earlier version of ASDF
after a refactoring. I didn't understand the subtle way that
*default-pathname-defaults* affects future make-pathname's as well as
merge-pathnames.
On 19 February 2010 10:50, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Would anyone object to augmenting the docstring for
COMPONENT-RELATIVE-PATHNAME?
Currently it's:
Extracts the relative pathname applicable for a particular component.
How about something like:
Returns a pathname for the
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -1:10 PM, Faré wrote:
On 19 February 2010 10:50, Robert Goldman rpgold...@sift.info wrote:
Would anyone object to augmenting the docstring for
COMPONENT-RELATIVE-PATHNAME?
Currently it's:
Extracts the relative pathname applicable for a particular component.
How about
On 2/19/10 Feb 19 -2:19 PM, Faré wrote:
2. SPLIT-PATH-STRING --- this is the one I think might need a ticket.
I confess I'm bamboozled by this one. It's called on (component-name
component), not on a pathname. Can you explain why the COMPONENT-NAME
would end up being a string that looks
On 19 February 2010 06:49, james anderson james.ander...@setf.de wrote:
this problem has been in asdf forever.
i have always just patched it locally, but as i've now thrown a few
things in the net which other folks should be able to build, i
suggested the correction.
Thanks for the
On 2010-02-19, at 21:47 , Faré wrote:
On 19 February 2010 06:49, james anderson james.ander...@setf.de
wrote:
this problem has been in asdf forever.
i have always just patched it locally, but as i've now thrown a few
things in the net which other folks should be able to build, i
15 matches
Mail list logo
