From: Faré
> Should we base our search path on the XDG Base Directory Specification?
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html
> To the point of actually using getenv to get these search paths?
>
> I say we should.
>
> The default configuration files should be
> $
Yes, ASDF will still work, in a backward-compatible way, if you only
use the *central-registry*. This is actively supported.
I'd like to eventually promote (asdf:initialize-source-registry ...)
as an alternative to setf'ing *central-registry* when configuring from
Lisp, and eventually declare the
On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -11:23 AM, Faré wrote:
> Should we base our search path on the XDG Base Directory Specification?
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html
> To the point of actually using getenv to get these search paths?
>
> I say we should.
Only to the extent t
> Should we base our search path on the XDG Base Directory Specification?
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html
> To the point of actually using getenv to get these search paths?
>
> I say we should.
>
> The default configuration files should be
> $XDG_CONFIG_DIR
Should we base our search path on the XDG Base Directory Specification?
http://standards.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-latest.html
To the point of actually using getenv to get these search paths?
I say we should.
The default configuration files should be
$XDG_CONFIG_DIRS/common-lisp/
On 22 February 2010 11:25, Robert Goldman 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 th
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
> 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
Faré wrote:
> On 22 February 2010 01:44, Daniel Herring wrote:
>> Now that ABL (AOL) is a standard part of ASDF, what is the proper way to
>> bootstrap/write a
>> (load (compile-file "asdf.lisp"))
>> and have the fasls appear in implementation-specific directories?
...
> 2- ASDF is not delivered a
On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -3:37 AM, james anderson wrote:
> good morning;
>
> On 2010-02-22, at 01:41 , Robert Goldman wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -6:35 PM, james anderson wrote:
>>> a question:
>>>
>>
[...]
>>
>>>
>>> why is this better than to leave names atomic and provide a standard
>>> s
>>> 2. We should define in the grammar simple-names and structured names.
>>> Simple names have no "/" and structured names may have a slash.
>>>
>> Where do we care? System names are not passed to the above function.
>
> We care for two reasons:
>
> 1. To put in the DEFSYSTEM grammar in the manu
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 i
good morning;
On 2010-02-22, at 01:41 , Robert Goldman wrote:
> On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -6:35 PM, james anderson wrote:
>> a question:
>>
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>
>>
>> why is this better than to leave names atomic and provide a standard
>> syntax to parse component relative (sic) pathnames?
>
> Note that my
13 matches
Mail list logo
