Faré wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> wrote: >> The :REQUIRE directive seems undocumented. >> >> Under what circumstances is it acceptable? >> > If I remember the intent and interpret the source code correctly, > it is always acceptable, but highly non-portable, and is thus better > guarded by a > (:feature :sbcl (:require :sb-posix)) > or > (:feature :ecl (:require :sockets)) > or some such. > > The result being that your component depends on a system that when > loaded calls (require name).
I see. We had done something like that, but by having a pseudo-system type called REQUIRE-SYSTEM, and setting it up to use REQUIRE for (PERFORM LOAD-OP SYSTEM).... I have a documentation patch that describes REQUIRE now. Should push it soon. Cheers, r
