Re: [asdf-devel] ASDF minimality
Tobias C. Rittweiler wrote: > Robert Goldman writes: > >> Similarly, I would prefer to have ASDF not fall into the SLIME trap. >> SLIME configuration seems to involve mastering an ever-changing number >> of contribs to get the features you really want > > Slime is not a good example of a contrib system for various > reasons. Though it depends on what you see in a contrib system: I think > it's an axis between not-officially-maintained addon code base and > plugin architecture. Slime is very far on the left side. I suggest > trying to get to the right side because it means that you really have to > try to get layers right. > Right. And what's appropriate for SLIME is not appropriate here. ASDF is baked deeply into many systems, so it has to be more conservative, and for it to serve its function it should work with as little configuration as possible (something not generally true of emacs ;-) ). best, r ___ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
Re: [asdf-devel] ASDF minimality
Robert Goldman writes: > Similarly, I would prefer to have ASDF not fall into the SLIME trap. > SLIME configuration seems to involve mastering an ever-changing number > of contribs to get the features you really want Slime is not a good example of a contrib system for various reasons. Though it depends on what you see in a contrib system: I think it's an axis between not-officially-maintained addon code base and plugin architecture. Slime is very far on the left side. I suggest trying to get to the right side because it means that you really have to try to get layers right. -T. ___ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
[asdf-devel] ASDF minimality
Faré wrote: ... > * try to keep asdf.lisp itself small and recommend that unnecesary > features should be put in contribs instead. Do we have a protocol for loading ASDF that ensures that by virtue of loading it "authorized" contribs (i.e., contribs distributed with ASDF) will also be loadable. One of the reasons I liked having asdf-binary-locations folded in is that it has been a pain to get all my colleagues to have this critical contrib. I'm happy to see asdf be kept slim, but not at the expense of having people need to pull a large number of different repositories or tarballs to get a full environment running. Similarly, I would prefer to have ASDF not fall into the SLIME trap. SLIME configuration seems to involve mastering an ever-changing number of contribs to get the features you really want [Hm. Now that I've typed all this, I wonder if I'm actually saying "I'd rather not work too hard to keep asdf itself small."] Best, r ___ asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel
