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.
O
I volunteer for the commit bit, as well, as back-up to Faré. I'm
primarily focused on documentation right now, but have some pending
patches (notably "clean-op") on the back-burner.
I suggest we also solicit a git-wizard to own the commit bit, as well,
in case we need to do some funky rebasing or
I volunteer for the commit bit. I won't do anything far-fetching with
ASDF, but I will
* merge the ECL patch
* accept contribs outside of asdf.lisp itself (e.g. for TEST-OP and DOC-OP).
* try to improve ASDF:
* make it use a configuration file https://bugs.launchpad.net/asdf/+bug/485918
* make
Hi,
As you've all no doubt gathered, my time is hardly mine own these days and this
looks to be a problem for at least the next six months. I've been living under
the illusion that some personal stuff would be getting simpler sooner but I'm
realizing that that is _not_ going to happen. sigh.
S
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> AFAICT this is the Right Thing, since (:depends-on ("foo")) has no way
> of knowing whether you mean the module or the file
>
I see. That makes sense.
Thanks!
JIanshi
___
asdf-devel mail
Jianshi Huang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently in parse-component-form function, duplication of names are
> checked but modules and files are put to the same category. Is there
> any particular reason for this restriction?
They are in the same namespace.
>
> e.g. I can't have both
>
> foo.lisp
> foo/
Hi,
Currently in parse-component-form function, duplication of names are
checked but modules and files are put to the same category. Is there
any particular reason for this restriction?
e.g. I can't have both
foo.lisp
foo/
in the same folder since (:module :foo) and (:file "foo") will
conflict
