Robert Goldman <rpgold...@sift.net> writes:
> Zach Beane wrote:
>> The complexity of the registry configuration is one reason why I added
>> the ~/quicklisp/local-projects/ mechanism.
>
> Right, so I don't see why there's such a huge objection to having a
> similar mechanism for ASDF. Stellian suggests using
> ~/quicklisp/local-projects/. So why is it wrong for ASDF to have a
> local-projects directory?
>
> All I am suggesting is to have the local projects directory for ASDF be
> visible, instead of invisible.
>
> I stand corrected about using a name that the user might have already
> had (thanks, Pascal!) but I don't yet see a solution that's as easy as a
> default directory location.
I think having a similar mechanism would be good. (And the
loading-from-a-file thing could be nice too.)
I think the main problem is that giving it a nice name means that the
chance is high of it clashing with a nice name one or more users is
already using.
A while ago I was thinking it would be nice to have an API like this:
register-system-directory directory &key permanently
Registers DIRECTORY as a directory to search for system files. If
PERMANENTLY is true, make the registration persist across sessions.
But then I got hung up about how to make PERMANENTLY work -- I don't
think there's any way to ask ASDF what directory is suitable for saving
a config file.
And I am 100% in favor of a nice solution that does not involve
Quicklisp. The simpler, the better.
Zach
