2009/7/10 Stelian Ionescu :
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 12:31 +0200, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
>> 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 ASD
Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 12:31 +0200, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
>> 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 sig
2009/7/10 Stelian Ionescu :
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 12:31 +0200, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
>> 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 ASD
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 12:31 +0200, Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote:
> 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 encount
> I believe that FILE-NAMESTRING is supposed to do roughly what you want
> here.
>
excellent!
>> (defun ensure-directory-pathname (pathname)
>> (if (directory-pathname-p pathname)
>> pathname
>> (make-pathname
>>:directory `(,@(pathname-directory pathname)
>>
Gary King writes:
>
> (defun pathname-name+type (pathname)
>"Returns a new pathname consisting of only the name and type from
> a non-wild pathname."
>(make-pathname :name (pathname-name pathname)
> :type (pathname-type pathname)))
I believe that FILE-NAMESTRING is suppo
New (more complicate) code:
(defun directory-pathname-p (pathname)
(and (member (pathname-name pathname) (list nil :unspecific))
(member (pathname-type pathname) (list nil :unspecific
(defun pathname-name+type (pathname)
"Returns a new pathname consisting of only the name and ty
>>
>> Couldn't ASDF signal a warning when it encounters such a thing while
>> grovelling through the registry?
>
> Wouldn't it be more user-friendly to coerce such pathnames to ones
> that
> denote directory names?
It sounds like there are two questions:
* How to inform the user that something
