Seems like it should be if it's suggested in the manual. Zach
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mark H. David <m...@yv.org> wrote: > Well, ASDF doc (here: > https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf/The-defsystem-form.html) is not > that clear about this. It shows an example .asd file, which does have an > in-package, albeit to package asdf-user, and says of it: > > The file starts with an in-package form for package asdf-user. Quick > summary: just do this, because it helps make interactive development of > defsystem forms behave in the same was as when these forms are loaded by > ASDF. ... The in-package form will ensure that the system definition is > read the same as within ASDF when you load it interactively with cl:load. > However, we recommend that you load .asd files through function > asdf::load-asd rather than through cl:load, in which case this form is > unnecessary. > > Don't mean to hijack usocket for ASDF complaints, but shouldn't > asdf::load-asd be exported? > > Thanks, > Mark > > > ----- Original message ----- > From: Zach Beane <x...@xach.com> > To: "Mark H. David" <m...@yv.org> > Cc: usocket development <usocket-devel@common-lisp.net> > Subject: Re: why is usocket.asd without an in-package or package > qualifiers? > Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:54:36 -0400 > > ASDF establishes a particular environment when using asdf:find-system and > asdf:load-system that is not duplicated by a plain CL:LOAD. It has always > been this way. You cannot reliably use CL:LOAD to load a system file and > have things work. > > Zach > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Mark H. David <m...@yv.org> wrote: > > I notices there's no in-package or qualifiers present in usocket.asd. > So you have to, it seems, do (in-package :asdf) or similar before loading > this file. > Is there any good reason for this? I was thinking of fixing this and > doing a pull request. Anyone against? > Thanks, > Mark > > > >
