Re: how to distinguish public vs private (entry-point vs internal) systems

2019-02-07 Thread Robert Goldman
I think the approach of disabling operate is not a good solution to this problem because, for example (this is one I have actually encountered), one might have multiple test systems that one wishes to test separately. E.g., "Foo/input-test" "Foo/processing-test" ... and so on. So I think it's

Re: how to distinguish public vs private (entry-point vs internal) systems

2019-02-06 Thread Hugo Ishimaru
Hi, when I read your post, I instantly came up with the system that may not be the target of OPERATE like ;; foo.asd ;; https://gist.github.com/privet-kitty/84350b73d528533ac8e19e5bba6aa333 (defpackage :foo.asdf (:use :cl :asdf :uiop) (:export #:hideable-system)) (in-package :foo.asdf)

Re: how to distinguish public vs private (entry-point vs internal) systems

2019-02-06 Thread Jim Newton
> > I’m both asking how they should be named, and how to advertise them for > programmatic consumption. > For example, and automatic testing program such as that included in > quicklisp, should not try to stand-alone > load systems which are not designed to work stand-alone. We have to work >

Re: how to distinguish public vs private (entry-point vs internal) systems

2019-02-06 Thread Jim Newton
> > quickref is another tool which tries to publish documentation extracted from > packages, but quickref would > like to skip packages which are not part of the public API, such as test case > packages which may require > other non-public testing frameworks. > > I'm not sure that ASDF can do

Re: how to distinguish public vs private (entry-point vs internal) systems

2019-02-06 Thread Robert Goldman
On 6 Feb 2019, at 9:02, Jim Newton wrote: I’m both asking how they should be named, and how to advertise them for programmatic consumption. For example, and automatic testing program such as that included in quicklisp, should not try to stand-alone load systems which are not designed to work

Re: how to distinguish public vs private (entry-point vs internal) systems

2019-02-06 Thread Jim Newton
I’m both asking how they should be named, and how to advertise them for programmatic consumption. For example, and automatic testing program such as that included in quicklisp, should not try to stand-alone load systems which are not designed to work stand-alone. We have to work around this

Re: how to distinguish public vs private (entry-point vs internal) systems

2019-02-06 Thread Robert Goldman
On 6 Feb 2019, at 2:22, Jim Newton wrote: When creating an lisp application I usually have one (or several) what I call top-level asdf systems which advertise the public interface to the application, and I may have several internal systems which are used but not intended for public use. What