On 3/22/12 Mar 22 -2:37 AM, Faré wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:05, Dmitriy Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Another question I have got is the relationship between ASDF and LispWorks >> defsystem rules. LW definitions are quite obvious. >> >> :caused-by >> If any of dependee actions are already in the current plan (as a result of >> other rules executing successfully, or as a result of default system >> behavior), they trigger successful execution of this rule, i.e. the >> operation on the target component. >> >> :requires >> The actions that need to be performed before the rule can execute >> successfully. This is a list of operation-component descriptions that should >> be planned before the action on the target component. >> >> In my understanding, ASDF :in-order-to is equivalent to :caused-by, and >> :do-first is equivalent :requires. Is this correct? >> > Sounds about right. > > I would even rename the ASDF ones to match the LispWorks name, > if I were sure to fix all the references (Are there any beyond ASDF and > POIU?). Is this really feasible? While I agree the old names are not ideal, the collateral damage of changing them seems extensive. depends-on and in-order-to are exposed through the defsystem grammar, and could be used all over the place. Benefits: mildly tidier naming; Costs: potentially extensive breakage. I really do mean "mildly" there, too. I don't think "caused-by" is so much clearer that it's worth anything. Either way you need to read the documentation to understand the meaning of :in-order-to and :do-first, or :caused-by and :requires. And the asymmetry of the passive voice in the former and the active voice in the latter seems odd enough to not help with clarity. Best, Robert _______________________________________________ asdf-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
