On 12/23/10 Dec 23 -4:36 PM, Thomas M. Hermann wrote: .... > > Robert, > > I'm not arguing that ASDF is broken, rather that the default behavior is > not explicitly defined. The benefit I envision is defined behavior > versus implementation dependent behavior.
Right. I'm not sure where to draw the line. I am by and large very happy that my /programs/ are not implementation-dependent. However, for example, I find that there are a number of things about the /environment/ my usual implementation provides me, and I would be reluctant to give those up. Since this is a matter of environment, I'm inclined to think we don't need to smooth over implementation differences here. Others' opinions may differ. Also, I don't know whether people who use more than one implementation are really the majority of ASDF users. I wouldn't be surprised if we were a majority of ASDF maintainers, but our preferences (which might lie in having, e.g., portable configurations) might well be unrepresentative. Best, r _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
